Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Electroplating qualifies as 'manufacture' for investment allowance under Section 32A</h1> <h3>Sri. Balaji Metal Finishers Versus Income-Tax Officer</h3> The Tribunal, by majority decision, allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee engaged in electroplating is entitled to investment allowance under ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the activity of electroplating constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance for job works in electroplating.3. Whether the ownership of raw materials impacts the eligibility for investment allowance.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the activity of electroplating constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee, engaged in electroplating various items, claimed investment allowance under Section 32A. The Commissioner argued that electroplating is akin to galvanizing, which the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Hindusthan Metal Refining Works (P.) Ltd. [1981] held does not constitute 'manufacture.' The assessee countered with technical opinions and case law, asserting that electroplating involves complex processes and results in a commercially different product. The Tribunal noted that electroplating involves multiple stages (degreasing, pickeling, polishing, etc.) and transforms items into commercially different products with improved qualities. The Tribunal distinguished electroplating from galvanizing, emphasizing that electroplating adds new qualities to the product, thus constituting 'manufacture.'2. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance for job works in electroplating:The departmental representative argued that job works do not qualify for investment allowance, citing the Tribunal's decision in ITO v. Ahura Shipping & Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. [1984]. The Tribunal, however, referred to a Special Bench decision in Thiagaraja Industries v. ITO [1983], which held that the ownership of raw materials is not a statutory requirement for claiming investment allowance. The Tribunal emphasized that the machinery must be owned by the assessee and used for its business. Electroplating, involving a transformation of the product, meets these criteria, making the assessee eligible for investment allowance.3. Whether the ownership of raw materials impacts the eligibility for investment allowance:The Tribunal clarified that Section 32A does not mandate the ownership of raw materials by the assessee. The focus is on the ownership of machinery and its use in the business. The Tribunal cited the Special Bench decision in Thiagaraja Industries, which supported the view that the statutory requirements are satisfied as long as the machinery is owned by the assessee and used for manufacturing or production. Therefore, the ownership of raw materials is irrelevant to the eligibility for investment allowance.Separate Judgments Delivered:The Judicial Member disagreed with the Accountant Member, arguing that electroplating does not result in a commercially different product and that the assessee, engaged in job works, does not qualify for investment allowance. The Judicial Member relied on the Tribunal's decision in Deepak Galvanising & Engg. Industries v. ITO and the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Buhari Sons (P.) Ltd.Third Member's Decision:The Vice President, acting as the Third Member, resolved the difference by agreeing with the Accountant Member. The Third Member emphasized that electroplating involves various processes resulting in a commercially different product, thus constituting 'manufacture.' The Third Member also supported the view that the ownership of raw materials is not a requirement for investment allowance, aligning with the Special Bench decision in Thiagaraja Industries.Conclusion:The Tribunal, by majority decision, allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee engaged in electroplating is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A. The order of the Commissioner was set aside, and the ITO's order allowing the investment allowance was restored.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found