TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company engaged in manufacturing and sales of different types of potato based snacks and namkeen. The assessee has filed its return of income for the respective years and claimed deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for each of the year under appeal. The A.O while passing the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and reassessment orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however, the grounds raised by the assessee against the validity of reopening of the assessment have been dismissed by the CIT(A). Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT(A) both the department as well as the assessee has filed these appeals and Cross Objections. 4. The revenue has raised common grounds in these appeals as under: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(11A) when there are judicial findings holding that the activities of the assessee would constitute the manufacturing and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the approval of Principal CIT and has issued notice u/s 148 on 31/03/2019. c) The assessee had filed its return of income on 30/09/2012 by electronic mode disclosing Gross Total Income and Total Income of Rs. 12,48,93,400/- and Rs. 6,01,46,520/- respectively and deduction under chapter - VIA : Rs. 6,47,46,882/-). The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses and deduction of the assessee. The assessee submits that in response to various queries, the assessee has furnished all the desired information and requisite details which were required by AO. Simultaneously the assessee also produced the books of accounts for verification before the assessing authority and thus there is a presumption that the AO who completed the assessment of the assessee had applied his mind to the details and books of accounts furnished by the assessee during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 142(1) or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly or material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. It would thus be clear that the proviso imposes further conditions and fetters on the powers of the AO in case where the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) and a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year has expired. A combined reading of the main part of section 147 along with the proviso thus shows that in cases covered by proviso, the AO should not only have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but it is also necessary that such escapement must be due to the circumstances mentioned in the proviso i.e non furnishing of return u/s 139 or 142 or 148 or due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly or material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee submits that in the instant case there is neither any escapement within the meaning of section 147 nor it is a case where there is any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e necessary for purpose of assessment. In fact if the reasons recorded by AO are seen in the context of conditions of proviso to section 147, the reasons fail to even state that the requirements of the proviso are satisfied in the instant case and the alleged escapement (if at all) is on account of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for purpose of assessment. k) In support of this contention he has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gangasaran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 130 ITR as well as ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas reported in 103 ITR 437 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be sufficient and adequate material to justify the formation of belief that income assessable to tax is escaped assessment. He has also referred to the following decisions:- (i) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dishman Pharmaceutical and Chemicals Ltd Vs DCIT reported in 346 ITR 328(Guj). (ii) MP High Court in the cases of Smt. Prabha Rajyalaxmi Vs WTO reported in (1983) 144 STC 180 and Lokendra Sing Rathore v/s WTO (1985) 153 ITR 466. 7. The next contention of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd 4. Dhansiram Agarwalla V. CIT 9. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that the A.O has specifically recorded in the reasons that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary for assessment. The assessment has been reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the scrutiny assessment for the subsequent years i.e. 2017-18 to 2020-21 therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer for the subsequent year is sufficient material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax for not disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for the earlier assessment years i.e. 2012-13 and 2013-14 amounts to escapement of income assessable to tax. Therefore, there is direct nexus between the assessment orders passed in the subsequent years and the reason to believe that the income assessable to tax as escaped assessment for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. He has relied upon the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and submitted that the CIT(A) has relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he end of the respective Assessment Years. It is manifested from the reasons recorded by the A.O that the A.O has not alleged or recorded any subsequent information or material came to the knowledge of the A.O which was not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act but the A.O has opined that the business of the assessee is of processing and manufacturing and sales of different types of potato based snacks and namkins and therefore, the assessee is not in the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetable. These reason recorded by the A.O do not reveal any new fact or material on the basis the A.O has taken this view that the assessee is not in the business of processing of vegetable but the information on the basis of which this opinion has been formed by the A.O was already available with the A.O and therefore, this is a case of change of opinion on the part of the A.O based on the same facts and record already available with the A.O at the time of passing the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Though the A.O has recorded that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment by reason of failur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1-4-1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989, As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Bombay High Court in case of Multi Screen Media P. Ltd V/s Union of India and Another 324 ITR 48 as well as 324 ITR 54 has analysed two situations where the assessments were reopened after expiry of 4 years and the original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and secondly when the assessment was reopened within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Hon'ble High Court has held that even in case of reopening of the assessment based on the assessment of subsequent year the reopening after 4 years is not valid as it is hit by the proviso when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and consequently the conditions as provided in the proviso to section 147 is not satisfied. Whereas the reopening within 4 years from the end of assessment year was held to be valid when assessment was reopened on the basis of the assessment year of the subsequent year. The Hon'ble High Court has held in para 10 to 14 as under (324 ITR 48): "10 In dealing with the merits of the rival contentions, it must at the be noted that during the course of the proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not even purport to state so. The ground furnished in the notice for reassessment would at the highest indicate that according to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, allocation of expenses as between the petitioner and the foreign principal to have been originally considered by the Assessing Officer when order of assessment was passed under section 143(3). That however would not give a valid reason to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years, even assuming that the Assessing Officer had erred in not doing so, unless there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Absent the existence of the jurisdictional condition precedent, the assessment cannot be reopened beyond a period of four years after the expiry of the relevant assessment year, as has been done in the present case. In the circumstances, the notice for reassessment is liable to be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that the Revenue has failed to establish the existence of the jurisdictional condition precedent to the exercise of the power to reopen an beyond a period of four years of the expiry of the relevant assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee company was only a manufacturer of snacks and not engaged in business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables. The inherent difference between manufacturing and processing can be applied in the assessee's case. The activities undertaken by the assessee results in the changing of the name, character, chemical composition or integral structure of the vegetable which would be classified as manufacturing as it brings into existence a new product. As per provisions of section 80IB(11A), the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under the said provisions if it fulfils all the conditions specified therein which was not justified in the assessee's company case. However, in the assessee's company case, the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sales of different types of potato based snacks and namkeen and not in the eligible business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables. Since the assessee company was not deriving its profit from the eligible business as per provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the Act. He has relied upon the order of A.O as well as the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or vegetables subject to fulfillment of other conditions as laid down in the section. 11.5 The Ld. AR has explained the definition of processing with the quote of the various decisions as under: A) PROCESSING: Definition: As per Oxford dictionary "Perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve it." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble Courts have also defined the processing in their judgments which are mentioned below: a) Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1991, 191 ITR P.656), the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the assessee company running a cold storage could be held to be an industrial company for the purposes of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973. An industrial company has been defined to mean a company which is mainly engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and other activities specified therein. The question was whether the cold storage of the appellant can be said to be engaged in the processing of goods? The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative for the reason that the stored articles cannot be said to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what is produced by such blending is ore of a different chemical and physical composition. When the chemical and physical composition of each kind of ore which goes into the blending is changed, there can be no doubt that the operation of blending would amount to "processing" of ore within the meaning of Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13." Earlier, it was observed that the blending of different qualities of ore did not amount to manufacture. c) In the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Mohini Rai (1999, 240 ITR pg. 636), the Gujarat High Court observed that in order to characterize an operation as processing, it is necessary that the commodity must, as a result of the operation, experience some change. The clear principle that runs through the above decisions is that notwithstanding the extent of processing and the changes that occur to the original commodity by reason of series of operations, it could still amount to processing of that original commodity. 11.6 The Ld. AR submits that potato-chips are manufactured by processing the Potatoes. It involves various steps which are shown in below mentioned chart: (i) Potato sorting (iv)Blanching (vii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decisions: (i) Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Chamadhi Traders vs. Comm. Tax Officer W.P(MD) No.6546 of 2011 order dated 23.04.2018. (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in case of M/s Shriya Enterprises vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax order dated 20.10.2011. (iii) Hon'ble Rajasthan Tax Board in case of M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer order dated 13.10.2017. (iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in case of M/s Janak Dehydration P. Ltd vs. ACIT, Ahmedabad ITA No.2325/2006 order dated 01.10.2010. 11.8 Ld. AR for assessee further submitted that the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(11A) and this claim is made on the ground that potatoes (vegetable) based snacks are exempted from taxes u/s 80-IB (11A) being profits derived from the business of processing of vegetables which are evident from the Form No. 10CCB (Audit Report), Food processing Policy 2008 of Department of Horticulture and Food Processing and copy of Tenth Plan Schemes of Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Govt. of India. are attached herewith. Kindly refer to Para 1 on page 2 with the main heading "Scheme for Technology up gradation/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etable or fruits and in case of assessee only vegetable. The assessee claimed that after the vegetable undergoing the process of making chips, snacks and namkins it is also requires packaging. The A.O has denied the claim of deduction on the ground that the business activity of the assessee is not confined to processing of vegetables but it is in the manufacturing of chips and namkins from the potato and therefore, held that the assessee is not deriving the profit from the business of vegetable. The assessee has explained the steps in the process of making the chips, namkins and other snacks in the chart as under: 12.1 Thus, the process undertaken by the assessee involves storing of potato, destoning of potato, peeling, slicing and washing, blanching, frying and flavour application. Each step is also explained that the potato is stored as per size and put into the elevator for removing the foreign particles like stone, clay etc. Thereafter the outer skin of the potato is removed to give it a smooth spherical shape before it is sliced into chips using slicer so as to get consistent thickness essential for giving correct size and texture to the chips. The slices are then washed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an a company which is mainly engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and other activities specified therein. The question was whether the cold storage of the appellant can be said to be engaged in the processing of goods? The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative for the reason that the stored articles cannot be said to have undergone a process mainly because there was reduction of moisture content as a result of long storage. At the same time, the Supreme Court observed that processing "is a term of wide amplitude and has various aspects and meanings". It was pointed out that in common parlance 'processing' is understood as an action which brings forth some change or alteration of the goods or material which is subjected to the act of processing. Another case which deserve reference is the case of Chowgule & Co. (P). Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124. The three-judge Bench of Supreme Court held that the blending of iron-ore in the course of loading through the mechanical ore handling plant amounted to processing of ore within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the mechanical ore handling plant fell within the desc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat notwithstanding the extent of processing and the changes that occur to the original commodity by reason of series of operations, it could still amount to processing of that original commodity. 10. Processing and preservation are two distinct expressions used side by side. Processing may be for the limited purpose of preservation of fruits without bringing about much change in the form of the fruit. But 'processing' in the context in which it occurs ought not to be confined only to be operations that would ensure the preservation of fruits as they are or in the form of slices. In other words, the expression should not be confined to minimal processing that would not change the identity of the fruit. If processing and preservation is to be confined only to fruits as such and not to be derivaties from the fruits, the benefit intended to be given to agro-processing industries will operate in a very limited sphere, thereby defeating the very object of the provision. The extraction of juice and oil from the fruits or further converting the homogenized juice into fruit powder and adding the substances meant for preservation would legitimately fall within the sweep of the expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ultimately, it was held that the potato chips will fall under the processed vegetable and when there is a specific entry, the tax applicable to that entry alone has to be applied and it is not expected to go to the residuary item. 6. From the perusal of the judgment of the first Division Bench of this Court, it is very clear that the chips will fall under the category 'processed vegetable' and accordingly, the same is liable to be taxable under Entry 107 in Part B of the first Schedule to the TNVAT Act. Therefore, it cannot be taxed under Entry 69 at the rate of 12.5%. 1 respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench and conclud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2006 (5) SCC 208, wherein it was held :- "31. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue that the goods were classifiable under heading 38.23 (now 38.24) as 'residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included' which was the last item covered by heading 38.23. The said heading 38.23 is only a residuary heading covering residual product of chemical or allied industries 'not elsewhere specified or included'. In the present case since the goods were covered by a specific heading, i.e., heading 25.01, the same cannot be classified under the residuary heading at all. This position is clearly laid down in rule 3(a) of the Interpretative Rules set out above. As per the said interpretative rule 3(a), the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a more general description. This position is also well-settled by a number of judgments of this court. Reference may be made to Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532.". Similar view was reiterated in Mauri Yeast Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and by processing of slicing, frying and spicing the potato chips did not cease to be a vegetable. The Division Bench however held that the legislature has conspicuously left out any form of potato processing or processed potato, under Part II Schedule 'A' to be taxed @ 4% though potato was exempted from tax under Schedule 'B'. 16. The Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge defines the word 'potato' as an edible tuber that grows at the end of an underground stem of the plant and is a vegetable. The encyclopedia further states about potato as under:- "They are cooked fresh and can also be frozen OT dried. They are processed into flour, starch, and alcohol and are used as fodder, especially in Europe. In the United States, annual per-capital consumption is 19 kg (42 lb) of fresh potatoes and 13 kg (30 lb) of processed potatoes, such as frazen French fries and potato chips." 17. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 19, 15th Edition classifies vegetables on the basis of parts of the plant, such as. root, stem, tuber, i.e., used for food. Potato is a tuber and states about potatoes as under :- "Potato. Potatoes should be smooth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....phur, Sulphur recovered as by product in the process of refinement of crude oil also finds place. 18. Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 25 starts with the words "except where their context or Note 4 to this Chapter otherwise requires". It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the headings of the Chapter would cover only the products which are in the crude state or comes within the purview of other activities contained therein. Interpretation of the said Note will depend upon the context in which the entries have been worded. If an entry is clearly worded and is broad in character, the same would lead to the conclusion that the context otherwise required. 19. An entry is to be given its ordinary meaning. If any goods fit in within one entry, the same for any purpose would not be held to be included in the other and in particular the residuary." 22. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds from a reading of entry no.6 of Schedule-II (B) of the Act to be an inclusive entry. The use of word 'all' and 'including' makes it apparently clear that it is an inclusive entry. The effect of the words 'all' and the words "including fruit jams, jel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e controversy before the learned Single Judge of this Court was, whether tomato ketchup was liable to be taxed @ 12.5 per cent or whether it was included in entry no.6 of Schedule-II(B) of the Act. The court held that tomato sauce was covered by entry 6 of Schedule-II (B) of the Act since there was no exclusion clause, namely, that the entry does not exclude tomato sauce. We are in complete agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 26. In the light of the aforesaid coupled with the fact that the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.32378/2010 vide order dated 18.02.2011, the court is the opinion that potato chips, being a processed vegetable, is liable to be taxed @ 4 per cent under entry 6 of Schedule- II(B) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order of the assessing authority, the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and are quashed. The revision is allowed. The assessing authority is directed to levy tax on the revisionist with respect to the potato chips @ 4 per cent instead of @ 12.5 percent." 12.4 The CIT(A) has d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which implies that all the 3 aforesaid activities are to be undertaken by the assessee cumulatively and even if one of the said activities is not undertaken, the assessee would not be eligible for deduction under the said section. - Before adverting to the legal position, it would be pertinent to first understand the processes undertaken by the appellant in its Unit for processing. preservation and packaging of vegetable in its case potatoes. The process of manufacturing of potato chips is given to the following effect:- After above mentioned production flow, appellant has submitted that it has undertaken process of preservation and packaging separately. As stated above, three primary operations are required to be undertaken by the assessee on a cumulative basis in order to be eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act viz.: (i) processing; (ii) preservation; and (i) packaging of vegetables. 7.4 In this regard it is respectfully submitted, that the phrase processing. preservation and packaging' as contemplated under section 80IB(11A) of the Act has a very wide connotation and include within its ambit all activities inciden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps, such as peeling, extraction of fruit oil, fruit pulping, screening, emulsifying, homogenizing, spray drying, addition of preservatives, colour and sweetness, and packaging, would be eligible for tax holiday under section 80IB(11A) of the Act, holding as under: "10. Processing and preservation are two distinct expressions used side by side. Processing may be for the limited purpose of preservation of fruits without bringing about much change in the form of the fruit. But, 'processing' in the context in which it occurs ought not to be confined only to the operations that would ensure the preservation of fruits as they are or in the form of slices. In other words, the expression should not be confined to minimal processing that would not change the identity of the fruit. If processing and preservation is to be confined only to fruits as such and not to the derivatives from the fruits, the benefit intended to be given to agro- processing industries will operate in a very limited sphere, thereby defeating the very object of the provision. The extraction of juice and oil from the fruits or furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m process that will not change the identity of the fruit. Let us therefore examine the applicability of the said decision to the case of assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps, such as peeling, extraction of fruit oil, fruit pulping. screening, emulsifying, homogenizing, spray drying, addition of preservatives, color and sweetness and packaging and the said assessee had sought direction from the AAR on the question whether the profit of her proposed undertaking would be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act. The AAR, after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the word "processing" has held as under......... 20. 21 22 From the above judgments, we find that though the decision of the AAR is not binding on the persons other than the applicant before it and the department when it is dealing with the case of that applicant, as held by the Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of imagination that there is no transformation of article. A husked Paddy is not a de-husked Rice, and not only the form undergoes a change but also the value addition happens by such process. A different commercial article undoubtedly comes into being. The industrial activity by employing men and machine in the industrial undertaking of the Assessee is not even doubted by the Revenue. It is also not in dispute that Rice and Paddy are two different things, but the only contention which the Revenue seeks to raise before us is that the said process of dehusking is not covered by the terms "Manufacture" We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that while the investment in the Industry is made by the Assessee and carrying of industrial activity is not disputed and the article in question viz., husked Paddy and Rice are two different articles having different value. what can be the reason to deny them the benefit under Section 80 IA and 80 IB of the Act. We see no reason, much less any justifiable reason, for denial of the said benefit to the Assesee before us. 17. We find that the definition of the word "Manufacture" though was not available in the Assessment Yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has defined the expression 'Preservation' as under: -Further the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of 3F Oil Palm Agrotech(P.) Ltd vs. ACIT (supra) defined the scope of preservation and held as under: "23. The next step involved is preservation and it is submitted by the assessee that since the rate of oxidation of the oil increases, with the temperature of storage, the temperature of the oil is normally maintained around 50 degree centigrade using low pressure stem heating coils to prevent solidification and fractionation. According to him, this activity satisfies the condition of preservation. 24. The meaning and purpose of preservation is, to see that the product does not deteriorate and maintains the required quality and standard. It is not required that all the processes or the steps of preservation, should be complicated. Some items may require the least the steps while, some may require a complicated procedure As long as the assessee is maintaining the standards and is taking steps to maintain such standards, it can be said that it satisfies the condition of preservation. The Ld. DR had relied upon the contention of the assessee befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or such other things in which an article of food is packed, Further, the term 'packaging' has been defined in the Merriam Webster as 'an act or instance of packaging something or someone such as: (a) the enclosing of something in a container or covering... damage caused by static charge during packaging, storing, and shipping, (b) the presentation of something or someone to the public in a way that is designed to be attractive or appealing -Cambridge Dictionary defines packaging' as 'the materials in which objects are wrapped before being sold -Oxford English Dictionary defines 'packaging' as "materials used to wrap or protect goods that are sold in shops -Collins Dictionary has defined the term 'packaging' as Packaging is the container or covering that something ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant has also placed heavy reliance on certain cases pertaining to VA Sales Tax Act wherein Hon'ble High Courts have consistently held potato chips preserved vegetable. Hon'ble High court of Uttarakhand at Nanital in the case Shriya Enterprises vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Uttarakhand, Dehradu in Commercial Tax Revision No. 55 of 2011 held as under "14. A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pepsico India Holding Pvt Ltd. vs State of Punjab 2006 (148) S.T.C. 30 (P&H) also held that potato chips is covered by the entry processed and preserved vegetable. The court held that potato, which is admittedly a vegetable after procession, becomes a potato chip and thus a potato chip can only be treated as processed vegetable. 23. A perusal of the aforesaid entries gives a clear indication that some of the products have been specifically excluded os, as held by the Supreme Court in Deepak Agro Solutions (Supra), what is not excluded would be held to be included and, consequently, the court is of the opinion that potato chips would be covered under the processed vegetable and is covered by entry No. 6 of Schedule -II (B) of the Act. The court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be drawn from the said decision. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. 13. In the result revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-objection is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 17.10.2024. ============= Document 1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DCIT/ACIT 4(1),IND To, PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED KHASRA NO.378/2 NEMAWAR ROAD NEAR MARKAND HOUSE INDORE 452020 Madhya Pradesh India (162) PAN: Assessment Year: Dated: Letter No: AAFCP0210P 2012-13 22/08/2019 ITBA/AST/F/17/2019-20/1017504293(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s. Subject: Reasons of reopening of case u/s 147 Reasons for reopening the case of Mis Pratap Snacks Pvt. Ltd. u/s 147 of the IT Act. 1961 for A.Y 2012-13 As per Information available with this office and upon perusal of case records, it is noticed that the assessee company claimed deduction under Section 801B(11A) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to ....