Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t or thing having a different name, character and use. Thus, the dimensional block was a different name with distinct use and character. Thus, the provisions of s. 2 (29BA) (a) of the Act [the ruling of the jurisdictional High court in the case of Puttur Petro Products P Ltd [2013 (12) TMI 251 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and also the Board’s circular No.729 dated 1.11.1995] clearly show that the process involved in the case of the assessee was ‘manufacture’ as defined u/s 2 (29BA) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee’s business activity amounted to manufacture or production of an article or thing as envisaged in s. 10B of the Act for both the AYs under consideration. In substance, there is no infirmity in the findings of the CIT (A) which requires our intervention. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.1436 & 1562(B)/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, JJ. For The Revenue : Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT For The Assessee : Shri V. Srinivasan, CA ORDER PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE, K JM: These two appeals instituted, at the instance of the Revenue, are directed against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see took up the issues, among others, for both the AYs under consideration before the CIT (A). After due consideration of the assessee s elaborate submissions as incorporated in his proceedings, the CIT (A) had allowed the assessee s appeals on the issue for both the AYs under consideration, for the following reasons, the relevant portions of which are extracted, for ready reference, as under: 4.14. Though these cases are prior to amendment to insertion of section 2(29BA) w. e. f. 1.4.2009 I am of the view that the process of extraction of rock and converting it into dimensional block is resulting block is resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing (here it is rock) into a new and distinct use and character. Hence, the provisions of s. 2(29BA) (a) read with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and the Board s Circular No.729 dated 1.11.1995 cited above, clearly show that the process involved in the case of the appellant is manufacture as defined u/s 2(29BA). The appellant also relied on Board s Circular No.5 dated 3.6.2010. Further, I find strength in the argument of the appellant that the process that the appellant had undertaken clearly points ou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... detailed discussions in this order, I am of the considered view that the appellant has satisfied the condition precedent for deduction u/s 10B and, hence, I direct the AO to allow the same for both the years. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before us with the present appeals. During the course of hearing, the learned DR submitted that the CIT (A) had failed to take cognizance of the fact that the assessee was only extracting granite block from the parent rock without any further process like polishing or any value addition. It was, further, submitted that the CIT (A) also erred in appreciating the parameters of manufacture laid down in s. 2 (29BA) as inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w. e. f. 1.4.2009 as the assessee s business activity did not satisfy the parameters and, hence, it cannot be categorized as manufacture . The learned DR also submitted that the CIT (A) erred in relying upon the decisions of the (i) Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Puttur Petro Products Pvt. Ltd [40 Taxman 430] and (ii) Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa [271 ITR 331 (SC)] as they were not applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the assessee s cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Supreme court is extracted as under: We are, therefore, of the opinion that extraction and processing of iron ore amounts to production within the meaning of the word in section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act and, consequently, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 32A(1) of the Act . 7. At this point of time, we refer to the findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Someshwara Stone Crushing Company v. ITO, W-1, Raichur [ in ITA Nos. 848 to 851/Bang/2010 dated 20.9.2013 had an occasion to consider Whether the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act?. While analyzing the provisions of s. 80IA of the Act, the earlier Bench had averred that 14 . Though the word manufacture has not been defined u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, we find that it has been defined under sub-sec. (29BA) of sec. 2 of the Income-tax .. After analyzing the said provisions and also taking cognizance of the decisions of (i) Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliable Rock Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [49 STC 111 ( Kar )]; and (ii) Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Sales-tax (Law) v. Pio Fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates