| Case ID |
ea4267e4-37f3-4ee3-a2ae-136ce662f0e5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 2003 |
| Decision |
The Madras High Court ruled that the assessee, Indian Cine Agencies, was not engaged in manufacture or production of photographic colour paper and thus was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A or deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the process of slitting jumbo rolls of photographic paper into smaller sizes did not constitute manufacturing, as the original and slitted products were essentially the same commodity. The court emphasized that there was no emergence of a new product and characterized the activity as integral to trading rather than manufacturing. |
| Summary |
In the case of Indian Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Madras High Court addressed whether the activity of slitting photographic colour paper constituted manufacturing under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined the processes involved in the handling of jumbo photographic rolls, which were imported and then cut into smaller sizes using sophisticated machinery. The central issue was whether this activity qualified for investment allowance under section 32A and profit deductions under section 80-I. The court concluded that the activity did not result in a new product and hence did not meet the criteria for manufacturing. The ruling reinforced the distinction between trading activities and manufacturing processes, highlighting that simply altering the size of a product does not transform it into a new commodity. This case serves as a significant reference for understanding the legal definitions of manufacturing and production in tax law, especially regarding investment incentives and tax deductions. Keywords such as 'investment allowance', 'Income-tax Act', 'manufacturing definition', and 'tax deductions' are vital for SEO optimization and relevance in legal discussions. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Indian Cine Agencies
|
| Judges |
R. Jayasimha Babu,
K. Raviraja Pandian
|
| Lawyers |
P.P.S. Janardhanaraja,
T.C.A. Ramanujam
|
| Petitioners |
Indian Cine Agencies
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 3665,
(2003) 261 ITR 491
|
| Other Citations |
Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323,
CIT v. Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 ITR 307,
CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412,
Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239,
CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 375,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 883
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
32A,
80-I
|