Itxa/405/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 Mumbai v. Prestress Wire Industries 303 Elphinston Houses Fort
High Court
17 Dec 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/405/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 Mumbai v. Prestress Wire Industries 303 Elphinston Houses Fort
Date of order
17 Dec 2012
Assessment year(s)
2001-02, 2004-05
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/405/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 Mumbai v. Prestress Wire Industries 303 Elphinston Houses Fort, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the assessee carrying on the activity of drawing wires of different gauzes from wire rods was entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in these two appeals.
Decision: In these circumstances, we see no merit in these two appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
itxa404-11+1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.404 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.405 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Prestress Wire Industries
..Respondent.
Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the appellant.
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2012
P.C. :-
1.Whether the assessee carrying on the activity of drawing wires of different gauzes from wire rods was entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in these two appeals.
2.
The assessment years involved herein is A.Y. 2001-02 and
3.According to the revenue, the expression 'industrial undertaking' is not defined under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) inserted with effect from 1[st] April, 2000. Relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise V/s. Technoweld Industries reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) and CIT V/s. Tara Agencies reported in [2007] 292 ITR 444 (S.C.), counsel for the revenue submitted that the activity carried out by the assessee was neither a manufacturing activity nor production activity and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Act.
4.We see no merit in the above contention. Under Section 80IB of the Act as inserted with effect from 1[st] April, 2000 the assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the activity of producing wire from wire rod constituted manufacturing activity and even if it is held that the activity is not manufacturing activity, the activity carried out by the assessee amounts to producing an article and hence the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. The ITAT following
its decision in the assessee's own case relating to AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 has allowed the claim of the assessee. Appeals filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT relating to AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 being Income Tax Appeal No.4728 of 2010 and Income Appeal No.4729 of 2010 have been dismisssed by this Court on 14[th ]September, 2011. Admittedly, the revenue has accepted the above decision and has not filed any appeal against the said order. In these circumstances, we see no merit in these two appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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.