Lube oil blending qualifies as manufacturing for investment allowance under section 32AC and additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia)

The ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s decision allowing investment allowance u/s 32AC and additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) to an assessee engaged in lube oil blending. The AO had disallowed the claim arguing the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing/production and failed to meet the threshold investment limit. The ITAT held that blending of lube oil constitutes manufacturing/production activity, relying on SC precedent in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The tribunal found the assessee met all conditions including installation of new assets exceeding INR 100 crores during the specified period 2013-2015, with assets being capitalized and put to use in AY 2014-15.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of Investment allowance u/s 32AC.
2. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia).
3. Classification of the assessee as a manufacturer.
4. Deletion of addition on account of excess depreciation due to incorrect classification of certain assets.

Summary:

Issue 1: Investment Allowance u/s 32AC

The Revenue argued that the assessee's activity of blending oil does not qualify as "manufacture" u/s 2(29BA) of the Act and that the assessee did not meet the threshold limit of INR 100 crores for investment in new plant & machinery during the specified period. The Tribunal noted that the AO's interpretation was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT-1, Mumbai vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which held that blending processes could be considered as "production." The Tribunal found that the assessee met the investment threshold and the assets were correctly classified as plant & machinery, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the investment allowance.

Issue 2: Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia)

The Revenue contended that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production, thus disqualifying it from additional depreciation. The Tribunal, referencing its findings on Issue 1, affirmed that the assessee's blending of oil constitutes production. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow additional depreciation.

Issue 3: Classification as Manufacturer

The Tribunal reiterated its findings from Issue 1, confirming that the assessee's activities qualify as production under the relevant tax provisions. Thus, the classification of the assessee as a manufacturer was upheld.

Issue 4: Excess Depreciation on Incorrect Classification of Assets

The AO disallowed excess depreciation due to incorrect classification of certain assets. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly classified the assets under "Plant & Machinery" and upheld the deletion of the addition.

Cross Objection by Assessee:

The assessee's cross-objection regarding capitalization of interest income on fixed deposits and the treatment of loss on reinstatement of foreign currency loans was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:

Both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues.

---