THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR,KOLLAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal and granting deductions under Section 80IA. The Court noted that the Tribunal had followed the decision of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Resins and Polymers [(1999) 235 ITR page 5], which held that conversion of raw cashew nuts into cashew kernels is a manufacturing or processing activity and that the assessee was an industrial undertaking entitled to deduction. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order, which allowed the deduction even though the factory premises were taken on lease. The principle established is that an assessee can claim deduction under Section 80IA for profits derived from an industrial undertaking, even if the undertaking operates from leased premises, provided the activity itself qualifies as manufacturing or processing. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Smt. Preetha S. Nair, proprietor of Nut Products Company, claimed deductions under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 10,27,545/- for assessment year 1995-96. The deductions were sought for profits derived from processing raw cashew nuts in two factories. The assessing authority restricted the deduction to 25% of the profit from one factory, Sreeramapuram, because it was taken on lease and not owned by the assessee. The first appellate authority confirmed this order. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, which granted the full relief under Section 80IA.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA in respect of profits derived from processing cashew in factories owned by outsiders? This question turns on the interpretation of Section 80IA and the definition of an 'industrial undertaking'. 2. Whether, if cashew kernels are manufactured in factories belonging to others, the assessee can claim to be an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80IA? This question also relates to the eligibility criteria under Section 80IA. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, and the ITAT held, that the assessee is entitled to deduction even if the factory is not owned but is taken on lease. The ITAT relied on its own decision in I.T.A.No.763 of 1995 and the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Resins and Polymers [(1999) 235 ITR page 5]. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) is aggrieved by the ITAT's order and has filed the present appeal, raising the aforementioned questions of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH (ORDER DATED 11-02-2003
H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.278 of 2000 dated 11.2.2003. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted the relief to the assessee under the provisions of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short). (2) The facts in brief are: The assessee is engaged in the processing of raw cashew nuts and export of cashew kernels. (3) In the returns filed before the assessment authority for the assessment year 1995-96, the assessee had claimed deductions under Section 80IA of the Act in a sum of Rs.10,27,545/- in respect of profits derived from the processing of raw cashew nuts in their two factories situated at Palugal and Sreeramapuram. (4) The assessing authority while completing the assessments has restricted the deductions under Section 80IA of the Act to 25% of the profit from the processing done from Sreeramapuram factory; since the same was not owned by the assessee, but was taken on a lease basis. (5) In the first appeal filed, the first appellate authority has confirmed the orders passed by the assessing authority.
(6) The assessee carried the matter by way of second appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.278 of 2000. The Tribunal following the decision of this Court in Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Resins and Polymers [(1999) 235 ITR page 5] and also the decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.763 of 1995, has held that the assessee is entitled to deduction even though the undertaking (factory) is not owned by the assessee, but is carried on in the premises, on lease basis. (7) Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal, the Department is before us in this appeal. (8) The Department has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA in respect of the profits derived by the assessee from processing of cashew in the factories owned by outsiders?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if cashew kernels are got manufactured in factories belonging to others can the assessee claim to be an Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of section 80IA.? (9) This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Resins and Polymers [(1999) 235 ITR page 5] has observed as under:
“On a reference held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that the conversion of raw cashew nuts into cashew kernels would be a manufacturing or processing activity and that the assessee was an industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under sections 80HH and 80J of the Act.” (10) Since the Tribunal has followed the decision of the juri ictional High Court which has attained the finality, in our opinion, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the assessee's appeal and granting deductions under Section 80IA of the Act. (11) We do not see any error in the orders passed by the Tribunal which would require for our interference. Therefore, while confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal, we reject the Revenue's appeal. Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE
(THOMAS P.JOSEPH)
JUDGE vns
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026