9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a closely held company engaged in job work activities. Analysis: The case involved a closely held company deriving income from tea brokerage, also engaged in job work activities with a rubber mixing mill. The company claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act for the machinery used in the rubber mixing mill. The assessing authority initially rejected the claim, stating that job work activities do not qualify as production or manufacture of an article. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the company, stating that the company was indeed engaged in manufacturing a commercially different product, masticated rubber. The Commissioner held that since the company complied with all provisions of section 32A, the investment allowance claim was valid. Subsequently, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's view, stating that investment allowance cannot be denied solely based on the company's job work activities. The Tribunal emphasized that masticated rubber was a distinct product commercially, and the company was engaged in its production. The Tribunal rejected the argument that using masticated rubber as an intermediate product for tire manufacturing disqualified the company from claiming investment allowance under section 32A. In a related case, the court had previously considered a similar issue regarding entitlement to investment allowance for manufacturing rubber compound. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the final product, in that case, was a rubber compound, not just masticated rubber. The court reiterated that the nature of the product manufactured by the assessee determines eligibility for investment allowance under section 32A. Upon reviewing the details of the process carried out by the company in question, the court found it to be similar to the process in the previous case involving rubber compound manufacturing. The court agreed with the earlier ruling that the rubber compound produced by the company qualified as a final product, entitling the company to claim investment allowance. The court also referenced another case where an intermediary product was considered a finished product if it had its distinct market, further supporting the company's eligibility for investment allowance. In conclusion, the court answered the common question referred in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the product manufactured by the assessee in determining eligibility for investment allowance under section 32A.
|
