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>Converting limestone to powder qualifies as manufacturing under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>CIT Versus Shiv Ram Veg Food Industries</h3> The judgment concludes that converting limestone into limestone powder qualifies as a manufacturing activity eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of ... - Issues involved:The judgment deals with the issue of whether converting limestone into limestone powder constitutes a manufacturing activity eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Manufacturing Activity Analysis:The primary question addressed in the judgment is whether the process of converting limestone into limestone powder qualifies as a manufacturing activity under Section 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The definition of 'manufacture' from Black's Law Dictionary is cited, emphasizing the transformation of raw materials into new forms. Reference is made to various legal precedents to determine the interpretation of 'manufacture' in the context of different processes.Legal Precedents:The judgment cites legal precedents to establish the interpretation of 'manufacture.' The Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka regarding the processing of shrimps, prawns, and lobsters highlights that processed items retain their original identity. The Madras High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sacs Eagles Chicory confirms that a change in form does not alter the identity of a commodity. These decisions were upheld by the Apex Court, emphasizing the continuity of identity despite processing.Apex Court Interpretations:The Apex Court's interpretations further clarify the concept of 'manufacture.' In cases such as Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Gem India Manufacturing Co., the Court distinguished between processing for consumption and true manufacturing activities. The judgment in Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax emphasized that a distinct change resulting in a new commodity signifies manufacturing. The Court stressed that a complete transformation leading to a commercially different product constitutes manufacturing.Application to Limestone Conversion:The judgment applies the legal principles to the conversion of limestone into limestone powder. It references the Supreme Court's decision in Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, where the conversion into lime and concrete was deemed a manufacturing process. The Court rejects the revenue's argument that this observation was obiter dicta, affirming that the conversion of limestone into lime and lime dust qualifies as manufacturing. Consequently, both questions are answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Conclusion:In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the conversion of limestone into limestone powder constitutes a manufacturing activity eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By analyzing legal definitions, precedents, and Apex Court interpretations, the Court affirms the manufacturing nature of the process. The decision highlights the importance of transformation leading to a commercially distinct product in determining manufacturing activities under the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
