NAFISA HATIMBHAI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue in the present batch of cases is one of some potential general significance relating to interpretation of the words "manufactures or produces any articles or thing" in relation to the deduction under S. 80HHA and 80 -I of the IT Act, 1961 ("Act" for short). Background facts

(2.) THE lucid and comprehensive judgments delivered in various appeals by various Benches of the Tribunal, Mumbai, delivered on different dates and the statement of case drawn in various cases while making reference give full account of the facts giving rise to the various references and batch of appeals. We give only the barest summary needed to understand the issue framed hereinafter. The petitioners and appellants are hereinafter referred to as assessees for the sake of clarity and brevity.

(3.) IN almost all cases, in the assessment proceedings, the assessees claimed deductions under ss. 80HHA and 80 -I of the Act. The claims of the assessees were rejected by the AO since in his view, the activity of ship -breaking did not amount to manufacture or production of things or articles within the meaning of ss. 80HHA and 80 -I of the Act. The assessees appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessees and held that the ship -breaking amounts to manufacture and/or production of articles and things. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal reversed the said judgment of the CIT(A) and agreed with the findings recorded by the AO that the assessees did not bring into existence any new article or thing or item, as such, they did not manufacture anything. The assessees in some cases preferred these appeals and in some cases sought reference to this Court under S. 256(1) of the Act.