2013 (8) TMI 587 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Manufacturing Deductions Denied, Revenue Appeals Successful

The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Keesara Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Keesara Plastics Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee is carrying on any manufacturing activity.2. Whether the manufacturing activity, if any, is carried out at Chennai or Dehradun unit.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the assessee is carrying on any manufacturing activity:The primary issue to determine was if the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities. The term 'Manufacture' is defined under Section 2(29BA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes transformation of an object into a new and distinct object having a different name, character, and use, or bringing into existence a new object with a different chemical composition or integral structure.The assessee detailed the process of assembling components to produce 'Torch Lights,' which included multiple steps involving riveting, soldering, heat sealing, and testing. The Tribunal concluded that the process described by the assessee met the definition of 'Manufacture' as it resulted in a new and distinct product, thus affirming that the assessee was indeed engaged in manufacturing activity.2. Whether the manufacturing activity, if any, is carried out at Chennai or Dehradun unit:The second issue was to ascertain whether the substantial manufacturing activity was conducted at the Dehradun unit, which is eligible for tax exemption under Section 80IC, or at the Chennai unit. The Assessing Officer provided a detailed break-up of sales and expenses for both units, highlighting significant disparities in cost of production, power consumption, and machinery value between the Chennai and Dehradun units.The Tribunal noted that the cost of production at the Chennai unit was higher than its sales, while the Dehradun unit showed higher sales with significantly lower production costs and expenses. The Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee for these discrepancies unconvincing, particularly regarding the lower power consumption and maintenance costs at Dehradun despite its higher sales volume.The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was likely transferring finished goods from Chennai to Dehradun to claim the tax deduction under Section 80IC, thereby misusing the provisions intended for industrially backward areas. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80IC and set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).Conclusion:The Tribunal ruled that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities but was not entitled to claim deductions under Section 80IC as the substantial manufacturing was not carried out at the Dehradun unit. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.