| Case ID |
048f71ab-8504-44df-b714-5c11fa60481a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 505 OF 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 31, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, affirming that the process of assembling motorcycle wheels from various components constituted 'manufacture' under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. The court dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the assembled product was a distinct article with its own character and use. It emphasized that the ordinary meaning of 'manufacture' applies, which includes the transformation of raw materials into a commercially distinct product. The appeal by the revenue was therefore rejected. |
| Summary |
In the case of IT Appeal No. 505 of 2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the eligibility of Mahesh Chandra Sharma for tax deductions under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02. The core issue was whether the assembly of motorcycle wheels from various components constituted manufacturing. The court analyzed the processes involved in the assembly, including the integration of rims, tyres, tubes, and other components, to conclude that assembling these parts resulted in a new and distinct product - the motorcycle wheel. The judgment emphasized the importance of understanding 'manufacture' in its ordinary sense, allowing for deductions under the Income-tax Act. This case reinforces the principles surrounding manufacturing activities in tax law, particularly in the context of assembly processes, and highlights the criteria for distinguishing between mere assembly and true manufacturing, which is critical for tax deductions. This case is significant for entrepreneurs and manufacturers seeking clarity on tax benefits related to manufacturing activities. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Adarsh Kumar Goel,
L.N. Mittal
|
| Lawyers |
Yogesh Putney
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
|
| Respondents |
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 2280,
(2009) 308 ITR 222
|
| Other Citations |
Indubhai T. Vasa (HUF) v. ITO[2006] 282 ITR 120 (Guj),
CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.[1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 (SC),
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills AIR 1963 SC 791,
Deputy CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. PIO Food Packers AIR 1980 SC 1227,
Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1986] 162 ITR 846 (SC),
Ujagar Prints v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 516
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
80-IB
|