Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
39 Deduction u/s.80-IB of Income-tax Act,
1961 : A.Y. 2002-03 : Conversion of polymer granules into specialised polymer
alloys in powder form amounts to manufacture : Assessee entitled to deduction
u/s.80-IB.
[CIT v. Shri Swasan Chemicals (M) P. Ltd., 300 ITR 115
(Mad.)]
The assessee-company was engaged in the manufacture of
plastic powder out of plastic granules. For the A.Y. 2002-03, the assessee’s
claim for deduction u/s.80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the
Assessing Officer on the ground that the activity undertaken by the assessee in
producing the plastic powder did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal allowed
the assessee’s claim.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Madras High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessee was
manufacturing various products of polymer powders. The finished products were
completely different from the raw materials. The product range itself was wide
and the products carried different technical nomenclature. The Tribunal had
come to the right conclusion which needed no interference.”