COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NATIONAL LAXMINATION IND.

TAXAP/1240/2010HC GujaratGJHC24027162201021 December 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s National Laxminarayan Ind, engaged in purchasing CRGO and cutting it into sheets, claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,99,30,737 under Section 80IB for AY 2005-06, relating to income from scrap sales. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, holding that only profits directly derived from the industrial undertaking were eligible and that scrap sales lacked a direct nexus with manufacturing. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting this disallowance. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which dismissed the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The revenue has now filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 80IB for income from the sale of scrap. The Court applied the ratio laid down in the case of DCIT vs. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri & Anr. (supra) by the jurisdictional High Court, which held that items like sale of empty bardana and plastic waste, if directly connected with manufacturing activities, are eligible for deduction. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Sadhu Forging Limited, which held that the receipt of sale of scrap is a part and parcel of industrial activity and therefore, deduction under Section 80IB is allowable. The reasoning was that scrap is a by-product of the manufacturing process, and receipts from its sale are gains derived from the industrial undertaking and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that income from scrap sales of Rs. 3,99,30,737 is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, without considering that it has no direct or immediate nexus with the manufacturing activity of the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld, relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in DCIT vs. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri & Anr. (258 ITR 785), which held that items like sale of empty bardana and plastic waste, if directly connected with manufacturing activities, are eligible for deduction under Section 80I (predecessor to 80IB). The reasoning was that if the assessee was not engaged in industrial activities, there would be no such items, implying their origin from the industrial undertaking. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the income from scrap sales lacked a direct or immediate nexus with the assessee's manufacturing activity and therefore was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 80I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/1240/2010 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1240 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ­ ­ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI ­ ­ =============================================

1.

Whether   Reporters   of   Local   Papers   may   be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ============================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus M/S NATIONAL LAXMINATION IND.....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI Da

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,068 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →