1997 (2) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether the assessee qualifies as an industrial company engaged in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of the assessee as either an industrial company or a trading company for the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer initially categorized the assessee as a trading company based on the premise that the actual manufacturing activity was carried out by weavers to whom the dyed yarn was given by the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed and held that the assessee exercised supervisory control over the weavers, making it eligible for the lower rate of tax applicable to industrial companies. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, which, following its own precedent, determined that even if the raw material was processed by others, the assessee could still be considered engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee qualified as an industrial company.

In the High Court, the Department argued that the assessee's activities did not amount to manufacturing or processing of goods since it merely dyed the yarn and provided it to weavers. Conversely, the assessee contended that its involvement in dyeing the yarn and supervising the weavers constituted processing, thereby meeting the criteria of being an industrial company as per the definition in section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979. The court noted that the Tribunal's factual finding established that the assessee purchased yarn, dyed it, and oversaw the weavers in weaving bed sheets and towels, which constituted processing under the provision. The court emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and processing of goods, determining that the assessee's dyeing activity fell under processing. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the assessee qualified as an industrial company under the relevant law.

Therefore, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The judgment highlighted the significance of the assessee's role in processing goods and supervising the manufacturing process, ultimately establishing its eligibility as an industrial company entitled to the lower tax rate.