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>Firm entitled to investment allowance for milling paddy into rice without ownership requirement</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer. Versus Sri Ramachandra Rice Mill.</h3> Income-Tax Officer. Versus Sri Ramachandra Rice Mill. - ITD 021, 395, TTJ 029, 188, Issues:1. Entitlement to investment allowance for milling paddy for others.2. Necessity of owning goods manufactured for claiming investment allowance under section 32A.Analysis:1. The case involved a firm engaged in milling paddy for hire, claiming investment allowance for plant and machinery installed. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the process did not amount to manufacturing or production of a new article. The firm argued citing legal precedents that milling involved a manufacturing process. The CIT (A) partially allowed the claim, directing verification of details for granting investment allowance. The department appealed against this decision, contending that the firm was not engaged in manufacturing but providing milling services.2. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions under section 32A regarding investment allowance on machinery and plant. It was established that ownership of the manufactured goods is not a prerequisite for claiming the allowance. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was held that paddy and rice are distinct commodities, and processing paddy into rice constitutes manufacturing. The Tribunal also referred to a Supreme Court case outlining tests for determining a manufacturing process, emphasizing the need for distinct end products. The Tribunal concluded that the firm, by processing paddy into rice using machinery, qualified for investment allowance, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the firm's entitlement to investment allowance for milling paddy into rice for others, emphasizing that ownership of the goods manufactured is not a requirement for claiming the allowance under section 32A. The judgment highlighted the distinction between paddy and rice as separate commodities and affirmed that processing paddy into rice constitutes manufacturing, making the firm eligible for the investment allowance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
