TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was justified in confirming the orders of CIT(A). Deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act – Applicability of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Gem India Manufacturing Co. [2000 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court] – Held that:- The decision in Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Mandideep Engineering And Packing India P. Limited [2006 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] followed - if various deductions are independent in nature available to an assessee under different circumstances, they all have to be allowed if they come within the application of a particular provision of law – in terms of Sections 80HH, 80I and 80IB, if claims are made for deductions by assessee in the same year at the same time, if it is found relevant for the purpose of giving deductions, all are to be extended - It does not depend upon existence of other provision - if the benefit is extended under one provision, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of other provision which is altogether for a different purpose – Decided against Revenue. - ITA. No. 576 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2014 - Dr. Manjula Chellur, CJ And A M Shaffique,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. P. K. R. Menon, Sr. Counsel, Sri. Jose Jos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty-Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in Panchayil Industries (ITA Nos. 336, 337 338/Coch/2002) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deductions claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the First Appellate Authority, the Revenue went before the Tribunal challenging the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal following the law laid down in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Poabson Granite Products (P) Ltd. in ITA No.495/Coch/2004 dated 04.08.2005 and Panchayil Industries (ITA Nos. 336, 337 338/Coch/2002), confirmed the opinion of CIT(Appeals) rejecting the claim of the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is before this Court contending that the activity carried on in the crushing units of the respondent/assessee can neither be called as manufacturing activity or the outcome of the process can be termed as production. 4. Learned Standing Counsel representing the Revenue took us through the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Panchayil Industries (ITA Nos. 336, 337 338/Coch/2002) wherein the Tribunal after referring to several judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the conclusion that extraction of iron ore and the various processes would involve production within the meaning of section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. In that matter, it was argued on behalf of the Revenue that extraction and processing of iron ore did not produce any new product whereas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High court that the activity in question constituted production has been affirmed by this court in Seas Goa's case [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word production is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word manufacture . It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee also relies upon another judgment of the Apex Court in Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2000) 830 ITR 245 (SC)]. As a matter of fact, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They further opined that the word manufacture would ultimately mean there is existence of new goods by the process which may or may not involve manufacture. When the above is the settled position as of now one has to see the actual process that is undertaken so far as the respondent unit is concerned. The activity normally carried on by the respondent unit has the following process: 1. Digging holes using jackhammers and Air compressors and blasting for producing boulders. 2. Breaking of boulders using mechanical rock breakers to produce rubbles. 3. Loading the rubbles to the tipper lorries using excavator loader. 4. Feeding the rubbles from the tipper lorries to the primary crushers for producing soilings. 5. The soilings produced at the primary crushers are fed to the different secondary crushers through conveyor belts to produce granite aggregates of different sizes vi.,1-1/2 , 1 ,1'2 ,1/4 sand and dust. 6. The above products are fed to the vibrating screens through conveyor belts for segregation and the segregated different granite aggregates are collected in different bunkers. 7. The products stored at the bunkers are loaded to the trucks for sendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
