Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 622 - HC - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act is not hit by the exception provided in Section 80IB(2)(iii) r.w. Schedule 11th (Item 25) to the Act, as polyutherim foam used by the assessee in the manufacture of automobile seat results in commercially different product then that mentioned in the 11th schedule – Held that:- The end product could not be called commercially different from the PT foam as mentioned in the Eleventh Schedule - The assessee is not involved in any further process including stitching of seat covers - It simply produces the PT foam seats which are used for making end product to be fixed in different vehicles - the assessee do not manufacture the end product, namely seats to be fixed in vehicles. The decision in Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Vinbros & Co. [2012 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] followed - the end product is totally different and is commercially different commodity than the major input rectified spirit which is not fit for human consumption - the changes made to the original product results in a new different commercial commodity which is recognized as to in the trade - the assessee manufactures is the foam in the shape of seats and therefore it cannot be stated that new product with the help of the PT foam comes into existence by any process – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|