{"id":7871,"date":"2014-04-26T16:09:12","date_gmt":"2014-04-26T10:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7871"},"modified":"2014-04-26T18:03:46","modified_gmt":"2014-04-26T12:33:46","slug":"cit-vs-mitesh-impex-gujarat-high-court-concept-of-manufacture-explained-non-claiming-of-s-80-ib-deduction-in-return-is-no-bar-for-claiming-it-before-cita","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-mitesh-impex-gujarat-high-court-concept-of-manufacture-explained-non-claiming-of-s-80-ib-deduction-in-return-is-no-bar-for-claiming-it-before-cita\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (Gujarat High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (mitesh_impex_80-IB_claim.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nConcept of “manufacture<\/em>” explained. Non-claiming of s. 80-IB deduction in return is no bar for claiming it before CIT(A)<\/strong> <\/p>\n

(i) The word \u201cmanufacture<\/em>\u201d implies a change but every change in the raw material is not manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. The assessees would put the imported material to series of manual and mechanical processes and through such exercise so undertaken, bring into existence entirely new, distinct and different commodities which are marketable. Thus, the Tribunal, in our opinion, correctly came to the conclusion that this process amounted to manufacturing;<\/p>\n

(ii) Though the assessee did not raise a claim in the return for deduction u\/s 80IB & 80HHC, it was entitled to raise the claim before the CIT(A) for the first time. If a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be shut out for all times to come, merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the AO. Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. The decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT<\/strong> (SC)is confined to the powers of the AO and accepting a claim without revised return and does not affect the power of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal to entertain a new ground or a legal contention.<\/p>\n

Note<\/strong>: Consider the impact of s. 80A(5) inserted by FA 2009 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2003 that where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction u\/s 10A\/ 10AA\/ 10B\/ 10BA or Chapter VI-A, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"


\nConcept of “manufacture<\/em>” explained. Non-claiming of s. 80-IB deduction in return is no bar for claiming it before CIT(A)<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Though the assessee did not raise a claim in the return for deduction u\/s 80IB & 80HHC, it was entitled to raise the claim before the CIT(A) for the first time. If a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be shut out for all times to come, merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the AO. Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. The decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT<\/strong> (SC)is confined to the powers of the AO and accepting a claim without revised return and does not affect the power of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal to entertain a new ground or a legal contention<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7871","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}