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>Court allows amendment to remove prefix 'Deputy' from 'Commissioner of Income Tax.' Upholds denial of tax benefit under</h1> <h3>DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAINITAL Versus M/s NATURAL FRAGRANCES</h3> DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAINITAL Versus M/s NATURAL FRAGRANCES - TMI Issues:1. Appeal filed by Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax.2. Eligibility of respondent assessee for benefit under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The first issue in this case revolved around the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax or the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant's counsel acknowledged an inadvertent error in using the word 'Deputy' as a prefix to Commissioner, attributing it to a mistake. The respondent's counsel contested this, arguing that the appeal was not by an incompetent authority. However, the court accepted the appellant's submission, allowing the amendment application to remove the prefix 'Deputy' from 'Commissioner of Income Tax.'2. The second issue involved determining the eligibility of the respondent assessee for the benefit under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer found that the manufacturing activity crucial for availing the benefit was primarily conducted in Uttar Pradesh, not Uttarakhand. The respondent procured distilled oil from Uttar Pradesh, which was a key ingredient in the manufacturing process. The Assessing Officer concluded that the significant manufacturing activities took place outside Uttarakhand, rendering the assessee ineligible for the tax benefit.3. The respondent produced a flow-chart detailing the manufacturing process, which was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The flow-chart revealed that essential manufacturing steps, including obtaining distilled oil from Uttar Pradesh, were conducted outside Uttarakhand. The court observed that the distilled oil procured from Uttar Pradesh was not sold directly but processed further in Uttarakhand to create the final product. As the distilled oil underwent significant transformation in Uttarakhand before being sold, the court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision that the major manufacturing activities occurred outside Uttarakhand. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the denial of the tax benefit to the respondent assessee.
TaxTMI 