2014 (2) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Tax Appeal Dismissing Sec.10B Relief for Outsourcing Manufacturing

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the eligibility for sec.10B relief. It was determined that outsourcing ... Whether the appellant is a manufacture within the meaning of section 10B - Held that:- The assessee was mainly exporting snacks items which were manufactured by the suppliers of the assessee - No manufacturing activity was done by the assessee till the stage of preparation of such items - If some follow up action is taken for packing and storing, the same would not partake the character of activity amounting to manufacturing or producing an article or thing - For any food preparation, raw material itself is of great importance - In snack items under consideration, dough, oil, etc. would play a major role in deciding its quality and taste - The assessee did not involve itself even in procuring such basic material - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Eligibility for sec.10B relief in respect of profits from manufacturing food items.2. Determination of manufacturing activity in the context of outsourcing.Issue 1:The assessee appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment questioning the entitlement to sec.10B relief for profits from manufacturing food items like mathia and chorafali. The Tribunal accepted the majority of the assessee's claims for deduction, acknowledging the manufacturing unit in the Kandla Special Economic Zone as a 100% EOU. The Tribunal considered the assessee as an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing when producing various food preparations. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim for deduction when the assessee outsourced manufacturing activities. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process flow chart provided by the assessee and concluded that repackaging outsourced items did not qualify as manufacturing activity by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer to determine profits from items manufactured by the assessee and exclude outsourced items.Issue 2:The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its decision, emphasizing that despite outsourcing part of the manufacturing activity, the assessee still undertook essential processes like sorting, packing, and storing items. The appellant relied on a previous court decision to support their argument. On the contrary, the Revenue opposed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's factual finding indicated the assessee did not engage in manufacturing outsourced items. The High Court analyzed the situation and clarified that for sec.10B deduction, the exporter must manufacture or produce the items. As the snacks were manufactured by the suppliers without the assessee's involvement until the preparation stage, subsequent actions like packing and storing did not constitute manufacturing or production. The Court distinguished the present case from the previous decision involving beedies preparation, highlighting the lack of direct involvement by the assessee in manufacturing the food items. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's factual finding regarding the manufacturing activity.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility for sec.10B relief and the determination of manufacturing activity in the context of outsourcing.