TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter for reason of the entire questions arising in the lis having not been decided by the Tribunal. The instant cases are one such instance which would have warranted a remand after 10 years of the appeal pending in this Court. 2. The appellant has raised the following questions of law, in both the appeals, for our consideration and decision: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case ought not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held that appellant was entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961? (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the Tribunal have held that the conversion of ungarbled pepper to be fit for human consumption amounts to production and therefore is entitled for ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal by the assessee, the first appellate authority, on both the grounds, found in favour of the assessee. 6. The Tribunal found that processing of un-garbled pepper into garbled would not be a "manufacture" or "production". Since the assessee was so dis-entitled to claim deduction under Section 10B, the Tribunal did not consider the other question as to whether there was reconstruction of a business already in existence when the partnership was reconstituted. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision in Tata Tea Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 234 CTR (Ker) 90] to contend that blending and packing of tea was held to be a "manufacture" despite; for the relevant year, the definition of manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnizes the distinction between "manufacture", "production" and "processing". A manufacture or production necessarily has to lead to a different commodity while a processing may not result in a new commodity being brought out. We, hence, decline to entertain the contention as raised by the learned Counsel. 11. Apposite here would be reference to Deputy Commr. of Sales Tax v. PIO Food Packers [(1980) 46 STC 63 (SC)]. Therein, the issue was whether after purchase, pineapple is washed, inedible portion removed and sliced; which slices are added with sugar as a preservative and canned under temperature and put in boiling water for sterilisation, gives rise to a different commodity. The learned Judges held so: "On a total impression, it seems ....