Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another v. M/S Beam Flash Lights (P) Ltd
High Court
31 May 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another v. M/S Beam Flash Lights (P) Ltd
Date of order
31 May 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another v. M/S Beam Flash Lights (P) Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 10 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax & another.
………. Appellants
Versus
M/s Beam Flash Lights (P) Ltd.
………. Respondent
With
Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax & another.
………. Appellants
Versus
M/s Beam Flash Lights (P) Ltd.
………. Respondent
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral)
CBDT issued an Instruction on 24[th] October, 2005. Thereby, it instructed the Department not to file appeals, in the event, amount involved is less than what had been mentioned in the said Instruction. On 26[th] July, 2007, a modification was made to the Instruction dated 24[th]October, 2005. In terms thereof, even if monetary involvement is less than the amount specified in the Instruction dated 24[th] October, 2005, there was no bar to prefer an appeal, when the case involved substantial question of law of importance. In the instant cases, the monetary involvement in the appeals was less than the amount mentioned in the Instruction dated 24[th] October, 2005. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has refused to accept the appeals.
2. In the present appeals, it is being contended that there was involvement of substantial question of law of importance. That, according to the appellants, is, whether or not, making a new product by
mere assembly of different parts, packaging and labeling of product, amounts to manufacturing activity and qualify for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
3. Assembly of different parts is a manufacturing activity, has been pronounced not only by this Court, but by many other courts. Accordingly, in the appeals, there was no substantial question of law and, accordingly, the appeals did not come within the modified Instruction discussed above. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
G
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 31.05.2013
(Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 31.05.2013
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.