TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....098/Mds/2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2.The appeal has been admitted on 26.08.2020 on the following substantial questions of law : "1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10B? 2.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is correct by holding that sculpturing and carving of dimensional block of granites and monument amounted to manufacture overlooking the conditions specified in Sec.2(29BA) wherein the manufacture has been defined?" 3.We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 4.It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that assessee had dimensionally cut and polished the block of granites and same were exported and the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.10B when the sale invoices clearly mentioned that the assessee had exported 'processed dimensional rough or crude granite' to mean that the granite has been processed into rough/crude blocks merely making them fit for transportation?" 3.We have elaborately heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 4.There are three appeals arising out of three Assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....The law on subject is no longer res integra and in this regard, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Income-Tax Officer, Udaipur v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai v. Pallava Granite Industries (I) (P) Ltd. reported in (2014) 221 Taxman 107 (Madras). Both the above mentioned decisions deal with granite and marble blocks. 8.The argument of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant/Revenue, is by submitting that, during the Assessment Year under consideration, the content in Section 2(29BA) of the Act was not available, and similarly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be read in a restricted way that the processing could not be included within the meaning of 'manufacture'. 9.Thus, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gem Granites (supra), on the scope of the expression 'manufacture', in the absence of any specific definition, we have no hesitation in giving common man's understanding as to the scope of the expression that the expression 'manufacture' would include every process, which would ultimately result in the production of new article having a different character in view." 9.The decision in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (supra) would also aid the case of the assessee, wherein, the Court pointed out that it was not con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticularly, in Para No.3 therein. Therefore, we find the decision in Gem India Manufacturing Co. is distinguishable. 11.The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Nishanth Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Mattancherry reported in (2018) 401 ITR 401 (Kerala). The said decision also would not help the case of the Revenue, because, whether garbling to make pepper edible would amount to giving rise to a different commodity distinct from the raw pepper purchased, was the issue therein. Admittedly, in the said case, the pepper both in raw form or in edible form, continued to remain as pepper. 12.The learned counsel referred to the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of excavation will not constitute manufacture or production. It was further held that even the activity of cutting and sizing of marble blocks after excavation would not come within the ambit of expression 'manufacture' or 'production'. In the circumstances, this Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 80HH of the Income-tax Act. However, this Court distinguished the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Best Chemical & Lime Stone Industries (P.) Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 883. In that case, Best Chemical & Lime Stone Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) was engaged in the business of extracting limestone and its sale thereafter converting it into lime and limedust or concrete which was....