1995 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the "Iron ore sizing and washing plant" constitutes an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether purifying and upgrading iron ore amounts to manufacture or production of any article for the purpose of section 80J.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim relief u/s 80J in respect of the "Pilot plant" being part of the "Iron ore sizing and washing plant".

Summary:

Issue 1: Industrial Undertaking u/s 80J
The court examined whether the "Iron ore sizing and washing plant" qualifies as an industrial undertaking u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the plant did not constitute an industrial undertaking as it did not engage in manufacturing or production activities. The court agreed, stating that the plant's function of removing impurities and segregating ore by size did not result in the production of a new commodity. Thus, the plant did not meet the eligibility criteria for benefits u/s 80J.

Issue 2: Manufacture or Production u/s 80J
The court considered whether the process of purifying and upgrading iron ore amounts to manufacture or production of an article. The Tribunal had concluded that the process did not qualify as manufacturing or production. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that the iron ore, after being washed and sized, remained commercially the same commodity. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, to support the principle that a process must result in a commercially distinct commodity to be considered manufacturing or production.

Issue 3: Relief for Pilot Plant u/s 80J
The court addressed whether the appellant could claim relief u/s 80J for the "Pilot plant" as part of the "Iron ore sizing and washing plant." The Tribunal had denied this claim, and the court concurred, noting that the pilot plant was used for exploratory exercises and did not result in the manufacture or production of any new article. Therefore, the pilot plant also did not qualify for benefits u/s 80J.

Conclusion:
The court answered all three questions in the affirmative, affirming the Tribunal's decision to deny the benefit of section 80J to the petitioner for both the "Iron ore sizing and washing plant" and the "Pilot plant." The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.