SEZ manufacture for tax deduction upheld where concurrent findings showed a change in name, character or use.

An SEZ unit's process was examined to determine whether it amounted to manufacture for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer treated the activity as insufficient because the raw material and finished product were said to be the same, but the appellate authorities accepted the process-flow evidence, the nature of the semi-finished material, and the commencement certificate, finding a change in name, character or use. On those concurrent factual findings, the activity was treated as manufacture under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the deduction was upheld, and no substantial question of law was found to arise.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the activities carried on in the SEZ unit amounted to manufacture under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the revenue's appeal.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction on the premise that the raw material and the finished product were the same and that only a minor process of sieving or removal of impurities had been carried out. The assessee's claim, however, was supported by the factual record before the Commissioner (Appeals), including the process flow, the nature of the semi-finished material, and the certificate showing commencement of production. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the process resulted in a product with a different name, character or use and therefore constituted manufacture under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. The Tribunal reappreciated the evidence and sustained that finding, also noting that the revenue had not established suppression of purchase cost or disproved the genuineness of the supporting certificate. As both appellate authorities had concurrently recorded factual findings on the nature of the activity, the dispute remained purely factual.

Conclusion: The activity in the SEZ unit was accepted as manufacture and the assessee was held entitled to deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law arose, and the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities were left undisturbed, resulting in dismissal of the revenue's appeal and confirmation of the assessee's entitlement to the deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the question whether an SEZ unit's process amounts to manufacture is answered concurrently on facts by the appellate authorities, and no perversity or legal error is shown, no substantial question of law arises in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---