2001 (2) TMI 121 - HC - Income Tax

Rajasthan High Court upholds investment allowance for manufacturing activities under Income-tax Act

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Laxmi Art Studio

The High Court of Rajasthan ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming eligibility for investment allowance deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax ... Investment Allowance Issues involved: Interpretation of section 32A of the Income-tax Act regarding eligibility for investment allowance deduction.Summary:The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the issue of eligibility for investment allowance deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act in a case involving a registered firm that had purchased and installed a colour lab processing unit. The Assessing Officer initially accepted the firm's claim for investment allowance, but later, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the order, deeming the grant of investment allowance as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Commissioner's rationale was that the firm's activities did not qualify as manufacturing or production under section 32A(2)(b)(ii).The Tribunal, however, overturned the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the firm's processes did amount to production of an article or thing, even if not strictly manufacturing. The Tribunal cited various precedents to support its conclusion that the firm had complied with section 32A requirements. The Commissioner then sought a reference to the High Court, questioning the Tribunal's decision.Upon review, the High Court considered precedents such as CIT v. Trinity Hospital and Natvarlal Anbalal Dave v. CIT, which dealt with similar issues regarding x-ray machines in hospitals. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the firm's activities were merely service-oriented, emphasizing that the key criterion under section 32A is whether the plant and machinery are used for the business of manufacturing or production, irrespective of marketability.The Court clarified that the end-product need not be marketable as a commodity for section 32A to apply, focusing instead on whether the activity results in the production of an article or thing. It distinguished between the requirements of the Sales Tax Act and the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the latter's focus is on manufacturing or production, not marketability.Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the firm's coloured photo processing machine qualified for investment allowance deduction under section 32A as it was engaged in the manufacturing and production of coloured photographs. The Court held that custom-made products also qualify as manufactured items, even if produced for specific customers.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment upheld the assessee's entitlement to the investment allowance deduction under section 32A, emphasizing the broader scope of manufacturing and production under the Income-tax Act.