TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Investment allowance denied for dyeing activity not deemed manufacturing under tax law</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner Versus Varma Mukherji (P.) Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the denial of investment allowance to an assessee-company engaged in processing grey cloth, ruling that the dyeing or printing ... - Issues:Claim of investment allowance by assessee-company based on manufacturing activity in processing grey cloth.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard an appeal by the revenue against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order regarding the denial of investment allowance to an assessee-company deriving income from labour charges on processing grey cloth. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim citing non-fulfillment of conditions under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) favored the assessee, referencing a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the decision in Empire Industries Ltd. case. The revenue contested, citing judgments like Fashion Prints Ltd. case and S.S.M. Finishing Centre case to argue against the allowance. The Tribunal noted the conflicting decisions and upheld the denial of investment allowance, emphasizing that the process of dyeing or printing on grey cloth did not constitute manufacturing activity by the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that the circular from the Chairman of the Board did not hold the same weight as a directive under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that judicial decisions supersede circulars in matters covered by such decisions, as established in previous court rulings. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT (Appeals) decision and reinstated that of the Assessing Officer, disallowing the investment allowance claim by the assessee.This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the term 'manufacturing activity' for the purpose of claiming investment allowance under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal meticulously analyzed various legal precedents, including the decisions in Empire Industries Ltd. case, Fashion Prints Ltd. case, and S.S.M. Finishing Centre case, to determine the eligibility of the assessee for the investment allowance. The conflicting interpretations of manufacturing activity in different cases were crucial in the Tribunal's decision-making process. Additionally, the weightage given to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and its impact on judicial decisions formed a significant aspect of the analysis. The Tribunal's emphasis on the precedence of judicial decisions over circulars in matters covered by such decisions highlights the legal principles guiding the interpretation of tax laws. Ultimately, the Tribunal's ruling was grounded in the specific facts of the case and the application of relevant legal principles to determine the eligibility of the assessee for the investment allowance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
