TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Punjab & Haryana High Court were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills & Ors. Vs. CIT, Chandigarh [2012 (9) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT] and it was held that the claim of the assessee whether the process undertaken by it was manufacturing or not, it had to be tested on the principle laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Oracle Software India Ltd. [ 2010 (1) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (SC)] wherein held the terms ‘manufacture’ implies a change, but every change is not a manufacture, despite the fact that every change in an article is the result of a treatment of labour and manipulation. However, this test of manufacture needs to be seen in the context of the above process. If an operation/process renders a commodity or article fit for use for which it is otherwise not fit, the operation/process falls within the meaning of the word ‘manufacture’. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case thus held that The above test has to be applied and adjudicated on case to case basis. It depends on the type of product which ultimately emerges from a given operation. In our view, this aspect has not been examined by the Courts below. The matter was set aside to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er para 2 of the assessment order. The plea of the assessee was that the said claim of deduction was disallowed in the earlier year both by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal following the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case reported in 253 ITR 659 (P H), wherein it was held that since the Cooperative Society was processing agriculture produce with the aid of power it was not eligible to claim the deduction as per clause (v) of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The assessee further stated that in another appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that in the decision as reported in 253 ITR 659 reference to clause (v) of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) was not warranted and has accordingly referred the matter to the Larger Bench for deciding the following question: Whether a Co-operative Society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar out of the sugarcane grown by its member, can be denied deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that proceedings involves use of power? 5. The Assessing Officer noted that neither t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the said order of the CIT (Appeals). The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the of the assessee society were farmers and the society was marketing agricultural produce grown by its members by way of running sugar mills and hence entitled to the exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assessee further pointed out that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case decided the issue in favour of the assessee. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the assessee to be entitled to the deduction and the matter was sent back to the CIT (Appeals) for certain factual findings. The learned A.R. for the assessee fairly admitted that no revised return was filed before the Assessing Officer and the claim of deduction was made by way of letter filed during the assessment proceedings. It was further pointed out by the learned A.R. for the assessee that as per the ratio laid down in Goetze (India) Limited Vs. CIT (supra) such a claim could not be made before the Assessing Officer but there is no bar in making the said claim either before the CIT (Appeals) or the Tribunal. The learned A.R. for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnish a revised return of income in respect of the said claim of deduction. 10. The case of the assessee before us is that the revised claim of deduction was made before the CIT (Appeals) also and the same should have been entertained in view of the settled position of law. The claim by way of letter dated 15.12.2004 was rejected by the authorities below in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited Vs. CIT (Supra) wherein it has been laid down that any claim made otherwise than in the return of income or the revised return of income cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer. However, the plea of the assessee is that it had made the said claim even before the CIT (Appeals) as the issue had been settled in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in assessee s own case reported in 315 ITR 351 (P H) and the same should have been allowed by the CIT (Appeals). 11. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Ramco International (supra) allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act as the form No.10CCB in respect of the said claim was filed du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
