Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Giving the above meaning it would be seen that in the case of the assessed the end product is a tunnel or a Power House or a dam. In our opinion, a tunnel or a Power House or a dam cannot be considered to be "articles" as the reference in the section appears to be an independent commodity. From that angel we find that the assessed company was not manufauctring or producing were eligible for intermediate product were eligible for deduction under Section 80J the question would arise as to when such undertaking starts being eligible for the relief under Section 80J. A company may start making out slabs in one year and the other small structural components in another year and amy ultimately construct the dam in the third year. If the ultimate product is to be considered the under taking could not be eligible in the first two years and in the third year when the ultimate product comes into existence, it is found that it is not an article, as it is an immovable property. We are not inclined to take the view that the making of tunnel or dam can also be considered as a manufacture of articles. While we do so, we respectfully depart from the decision of the Orissa High Court in the Case of N.C. Budharaja. Section 80J has to be considered as a whole and when we look to its requirements, we find that an undertaking like the assessed cannot get the benefit under Section 80J as it stands. In the course of making of dams or tunnels the assessed may acquire various raw materials and may process them to construct the dam. In that process it is likely that some components are manufactured by undertaking itself. That will be an intermediate product. However, it cannot result in the conclusion that the undertaking is manufacturing articles for which it has come into existence. If such intermediate article was to be taken into consideration, there will be no end to the confusion of computation or grant of relief. In fact, Section 80J does not contemplate such a meaning. It has, therefore, to be held that the assessed company in its undertaking for the construction of tunnels or dams is not manufacturing or producing articles so as to enable it to get deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The same position will apply to the claim of the assessed under Section 80Hh of the Income-tax Act. The language there is also similar to the language used in Section 80J."

Article would inter alia mean a particular object or substance, a material, thing or a class of things, material or tangible object. (See Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn. Page

111).

Nobody manufactures a dam or a tunnel. A dam or tunnel is constructed, but the question, which arose for consideration, was although a tunnel or a dam would not be an article, which is capable of being manufactured, but whether the intermediate products may be considered to come within the purview of manufacturing activity/ industrial undertaking within the meaning thereof. The question, which has not been gone into by the learned Tribunal, was if at all the gross total income of assessed includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, by reason of manufacture of intermediate product and not necessarily end product, the benefit under the aforementioned provisions can be derived by the assessed company.

It may be that the respondent is himself manufacturing some of the articles like gates, windows and doors which go into the construction of a dam but that make little difference to the principle. The petitioner is not claiming the deduction provided by Section 80HH on the value of the said manufactured articles but on the total value of the dam as such . In such a situation, it is immaterial whether the manufactured articles which go into the construction of a dam are manufactured by him or purchased by him from another person. We need not express any opinion on the question what would be the position if the respondent had claimed the benefit of Section 80HH on the value of the articles manufactured or produced by him which articles have gone into/consumed in the construction of the dam."

21. However, the decision of the Minocha Brothers P. Ltd.'s case (Supra) has been upheld by the Apex Court on a different ground.

22. In Asian Techs Ltd.'s case (Supra) , a Division Bench of Kerala High Court held:-

"Learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the question as to benefit of Section 80HH on value of articles manufactured or produced by him which have gone into the construction of the dam was left open. On a reading of the decision of the apex court, it is clear that the activities carried on by the party in the case before the apex court. Where the articles manufactured go into the construction of the dam, it was observed that such situation makes little difference to the principles in the case. There is no scope of finding out whether the part of the activity generated an income for the purpose of Section 80HH. The business activities were conducted as a whole and it is almost impossible as accepted by learned counsel for the assessed to decipher one of the activities for the purpose of finding out whether any profit if relatable thereto."