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>Twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn qualifies as 'manufacture' under Section 80IA; process over dictionary meaning</h1> <h3>CIT., Mumbai Versus M/s. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd.</h3> CIT., Mumbai Versus M/s. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 321 ( SC), [2010] 320 ITR 665 ( SC), [2010] 229 CTR 1 Issues Involved:- Interpretation of 'manufacture' in terms of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn (POY).Detailed Analysis:- The primary issue in this judgment revolves around determining whether twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn (POY) constitutes 'manufacture' as per Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasizes the importance of examining the specific process involved in each case rather than relying solely on dictionary meanings. The expert opinion plays a crucial role in assessing whether the process of twisting and texturising transforms POY into a manufactured product. The Court highlights that POY, in its original state, is a semi-finished yarn not suitable for direct use in fabric manufacturing, and it requires a thermo mechanical process to convert it into texturized yarn, which is then used in fabric production.- The judgment delves into the concept of 'manufacture,' stating that not every change in an article amounts to manufacture unless it renders the article fit for a purpose for which it was previously unsuitable. The Court applies this test to the case at hand, concluding that the thermo mechanical process applied to POY brings about a structural change in the yarn, making it suitable for fabric manufacturing. The Court also references the Finance Act No.2/2009, which explicitly defines 'manufacture' as the creation of a new object with a different composition or structure, aligning with the transformation undergone by POY during texturising.- The Court distinguishes a previous judgment regarding twisting of cellulosic filament yarn from the current case involving POY. It clarifies that while the former may not constitute manufacture, the latter's transformation through the thermo mechanical process qualifies as manufacturing due to the structural changes and enhanced usability for fabric production. The judgment underscores that the decision is specific to the facts of this case and does not establish a blanket rule that all texturising or twisting activities amount to manufacturing, emphasizing the unique circumstances surrounding the conversion of POY into texturized yarn.- Ultimately, the Court upholds the lower court's decision, dismissing the Civil Appeals filed by the Department. The judgment affirms that the thermo mechanical process applied to POY for texturising and twisting meets the criteria of 'manufacture' under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ruling underscores the importance of analyzing the structural changes, usability, and transformation of the product in determining whether a process qualifies as manufacturing, highlighting the specific context of each case in making such determinations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
