SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ker) 352

Judges : ARIJIT PASAYAT,K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Commissioner of Income-tax - Appellant
Versus
Geo Tech Foundations & Constructions - Respondent
Case No : I.T.R. No. 13 of 1997
Decided On : 09/24/1999
Advocates Appeared :
P.K. Raveendranatha Menon (Sr. Advocate) & N.R.K.Nair For Applicant

The judgment established that for an assessee to claim deduction under S.80-I of the Income Tax Act, it must be considered an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activity.

Headnote:

Manufacture - Deduction under S.80-I - The court held that the assessee, engaged in the execution of pile foundation work, was not entitled to claim deduction under S.80-I of the Income Tax Act as it was not considered an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activity.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in pile foundation work, claimed deduction under S.80-I of the Income Tax Act. The claim was rejected by the assessing officer, and the matter was appealed by the revenue before the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction in respect of profits from construction activities but was eligible for deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the manufacture of frames, doors, windows, etc.

Issues: The main issue was whether the assessee was an industrial undertaking entitled to claim deduction under S.80-I of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test for determining whether manufacture had taken place, emphasizing that the commodity subjected to the process of manufacture should be recognized as a new and distinct commodity. It also considered the wider connotation of the word 'production' and its association with movables.

Final Decision: The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, and disposed of the reference accordingly.

Judgment :-

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Heard Sri. P.K. Raveendranatha Menon, learned counsel for the revenue. No-one appears for the assessee when the matter is called.

2. Considering an application for reference under S.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred to by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') for opinion of this Court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding,

(i) the assessee is an industrial undertaking;

(ii) the assessee is entitled to get deduction under S.80-1 in respect of profits referable to manufacture of any article or product or thing in the course of its construction activities and are not the above finding and decision wrong and unreasonable?"

3. Factual position necessary to be noted for disposal of the question is as follows:-Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the execution of pile foundation work. In its return of income for the assessment year 1985-86, deduction was claimed under S.80-I of the Act. The same was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that it was not an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activity but only a contractor for execution of work for others. Matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short 'the C.I.T.(A)') who allowed the claim. Revenue challenged the appellate order before the Tribunal. It was inter alia held by the Tribunal that assessee was not entitled to get the deduction in respect of profits from construction activities, but was eligible for deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from manufacture of frames, doors, windows etc. The issue was restored to the file of the assessing officer to quantify the profit from manufacture of frames, doors, windows etc. An application for reference being made, as stated above, the question quoted has been referred for opinion.

4. Sri Ravindranatha Menon, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessee is not an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing, entitling it to claim deduction under S.80-1 of the Act. The test for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity, but is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. The word 'production' has a wider connotation that the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The word 'production' or 'produce', when used in juxtaposition with the word 'manufacture', takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the byproducts, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. The expressions 'manufacture' and 'produce' are normally associated with movables - articles and goods - but they are never employed to denote construction activity of the nature involved in construction of a dam or a building. The word 'article' is not defined in the Act or the Income Tax Rules 1962 (in short'the rules' ). It must, therefore, be understood in its normal connotation, i.e. the sense in which it is understood in the commercial world. It is equally well-settled that a word takes its colour from its context.

5. Undisputed factual position is that assessee was engaged in the execution of pile foundation work. As was observed by the Apex Court in C.I.T. v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. (1993) 204 I.T.R. 412, such activities cannot be construed to involve a process of manufacture or a process of production. It is to be noted that the Tribunal itself had observed that frames, doors and windows as well as cement, concrete slabs and other allied articles were used in the building construct


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top