{"id":124568,"date":"2009-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-08T14:43:31","modified_gmt":"2015-05-08T09:13:31","slug":"income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, J.M. Panchal, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.8036 OF 2009\n                 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9812\/2008)\n\nIncome Tax Officer, Udaipur                                   ...Appellant(s)\n\n                      Versus\n\nM\/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd.                          ...Respondent(s)\n\n                                       W I T H\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8037 TO 8044 OF 2009\n(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1685, 1691, 2577, 3711, 5283,\n                16674, 20789 & 20619 of 2009)\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
S.H. KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
        In this batch of Civil Appeals, a common question<\/p>\n
of   law    which       arises    for    determination          is:    whether<\/p>\n
conversion of marble blocks by sawing into slabs and<\/p>\n
tiles      and     polishing       amounts        to     “manufacture         or<\/p>\n
production       of    article    or    thing”     so    as    to     make   the<\/p>\n
respondent(s)-assessee(s)              entitled    to    the     benefit      of<\/p>\n
Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood at<\/p>\n
the material time.\n<\/p>\n
        The lead matter is Civil Appeal arising out of<\/p>\n
S.L.P.(C)        No.9812\/2008      in    the      case    of    Income       Tax<\/p>\n
Officer, Udaipur Vs. M\/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P)
\nLtd.\n<\/p>\n
         The assessee, during the relevant Assessment Year<\/p>\n
2001-2002,          was         engaged       in      the         business    of<\/p>\n
manufacture\/production of polished slabs and tiles which<\/p>\n
the assessee exported (partly).                    The prime condition for<\/p>\n
allowing deduction under Section 80IA, as it stood at<\/p>\n
the    material         time,    was   that    industrial          undertakings<\/p>\n
should manufacture or produce any article or thing, not<\/p>\n
being any article or thing specified in the list in<\/p>\n
Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
         The question before us is: whether on facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case(s) the activities undertaken<\/p>\n
by     the   respondent(s)          herein     would        fall    within    the<\/p>\n
meaning      of    the    words     “manufacture       or     production”      in<\/p>\n
Section 80IA of the 1961 Act?\n<\/p>\n
         To answer the above issue, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
reproduce the details of stepwise activities undertaken<\/p>\n
by the assessee(s) which read as follows:-<\/p>\n
                  “i)     Marble blocks excavated\/extracted
\n                          by the    mine owners being in raw
\n                          uneven shapes have to be properly
\n                          sorted out and marked;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  ii)     Such blocks are then processed on
\n                          single   blade\/wire   saw   machines
\n                          using advanced technology to square
\n                          them by separating waster material;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  iii)    Squared up blocks are sawed for
\n                          making slabs by using the gang saw
\n                          machine   or    single\/multi block
\n                          cutter machine;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  iv)     The      sawn       slabs         are     further
\n                        reinforced by way of filling cracks
\n                        by epoxy resins and fibre netting;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             v)         The slabs are polished on polishing
\n                        machine; the slabs are further edge
\n                        cut into required dimensions\/tiles
\n                        as   per   market   requirement   in
\n                        prefect angles by edge cutting
\n                        machine   and   multi  disc   cutter
\n                        machines;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             vi)        Polished slabs and tiles are buffed
\n                        by shiner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In addition to the above activities, it may also be<\/p>\n
noted     that    the     assessee(s)         has   been    consistently<\/p>\n
regarded     as      a        manufacturer\/producer         by      various<\/p>\n
Government       Departments          and    Agencies.        The       above<\/p>\n
processes    undertaken         by    the    respondent(s)       have    been<\/p>\n
treated as manufacture under the Excise Act and allied<\/p>\n
tax laws.\n<\/p>\n
        At the outset, we may point out that in numerous<\/p>\n
judgments of this Court, it has been consistently held<\/p>\n
that the word “production” is wider in its scope as<\/p>\n
compared to the word “manufacture”.                 Further, Parliament<\/p>\n
itself has taken note of the ground reality and has<\/p>\n
amended the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by<\/p>\n
inserting Section 2(29BA) vide Finance Act, 2009, with<\/p>\n
effect from 1st April, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
        We quote herein-below the relevant provisions of<\/p>\n
Section    2(29BA)       as    also    the   relevant      provisions      of<\/p>\n
Section 80IA(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
             “2(29BA)     “manufacture”     with   its
\n                   grammatical  variations,  means   a
\n                      change in a non-living physical
\n                      object or article or thing,-\n<\/p>\n
                      (a)     resulting in transformation of
\n                             the object or article or thing
\n                             into a new and distinct object
\n                             or article or thing having a
\n                             different name, character and
\n                             use; or<\/p>\n
                      (b) bringing into existence of a
\n                          new and distinct object or
\n                          article   or   thing   with  a
\n                          different chemical composition
\n                          or integral structure;”\n<\/p>\n
\n               “80IA(2) (iii) it manufactures or produces
\n               any article or thing, not being any article
\n               or thing specified in the list in the
\n               Eleventh Schedule, or operates one or more
\n               cold storage plant or plants, in any part
\n               of India.”\n<\/p>\n
\n        The Authorities below rejected the contention of<\/p>\n
the assessee(s) that its activities of polishing slabs<\/p>\n
and   making    of   tiles    from   marble     blocks    constituted<\/p>\n
“manufacture” or “production” under Section 80IA of the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Act.       There was difference of opinion in this<\/p>\n
connection between the Members of the ITAT.               However, by<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment, the High Court has accepted the<\/p>\n
contention     of    the    assessee(s)      holding   that    in     the<\/p>\n
present      case,     polished      slabs      and    tiles        stood<\/p>\n
manufactured\/produced         from   the      marble     blocks      and,<\/p>\n
consequently, each of the assessee was entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of deduction under Section 80IA.                 Hence, these<\/p>\n
Civil Appeals have been filed by the Department.<\/p>\n
        Incidentally, it may be noted that some of the
\nassessees before us are also job workers duly registered<\/p>\n
under   the    provisions       of   the    Excise      Act\/Rules     framed<\/p>\n
thereunder.        It may also be clarified that in these<\/p>\n
cases, we are concerned with assessees who are basically<\/p>\n
factory owners and not mine owners.                 This distinction is<\/p>\n
of some relevance when we analyse the various judgments<\/p>\n
cited before us fairly by the learned counsel on behalf<\/p>\n
of the Department.\n<\/p>\n
        The    main   judgment       on    which    the    Department     has<\/p>\n
placed reliance is the judgment of this Court in Lucky<\/p>\n
Minmat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur,<\/p>\n
reported      in   (2001)   9    SCC      669.     In     that    case,   the<\/p>\n
following question came up for consideration before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
               “Whether on the facts and in the
\n        circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\n        justified in holding that business activity of
\n        the assessee was in the nature of manufacturing
\n        or production so as to be entitled for relief
\n        under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act,
\n        1961.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The assessee in that case had the business of mining of<\/p>\n
limestones and marble blocks which thereafter were cut<\/p>\n
and sized before being sold in the market.                       It was held<\/p>\n
by this Court that the assessee was essentially in the<\/p>\n
business of mining of limestone.                 It was held that the<\/p>\n
activity of excavation will not constitute manufacture<\/p>\n
or   production.       It   was      further       held    that    even   the<\/p>\n
activity of cutting and sizing of marble blocks after
\nexcavation would not come within the ambit of expression<\/p>\n
‘manufacture’ or ‘production’.                          In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
this Court held that the assessee was not entitled to<\/p>\n
the    benefit       of    Section       80HH      of    the       Income      Tax    Act.<\/p>\n
However, this Court distinguished the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Rajasthan      High       Court     in    the       case       of    CIT       vs.    Best<\/p>\n
Chemical and Lime Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported<\/p>\n
in 210 ITR 883 (Raj.).                 In that case, M\/s Best Chemical<\/p>\n
was engaged in the business of extracting limestone and<\/p>\n
its sale thereafter after converting it into lime and<\/p>\n
limedust or concrete which was held to be an activity of<\/p>\n
manufacture or production.                    The activity of conversion<\/p>\n
into lime and limedust, according to this Court, in the<\/p>\n
case    of     Lucky       Minmat        Pvt.      Ltd.        (supra)         certainly<\/p>\n
constituted a manufacturing process.                               It was clarified<\/p>\n
in    the    said    case    that       mere     mining        of        limestone     and<\/p>\n
marble and cutting the same before it was sold will not<\/p>\n
constitute “manufacture” or “production” but conversion<\/p>\n
into lime and limedust could constitute the activity of<\/p>\n
manufacturing or production.                       This distinction has not<\/p>\n
been    taken        into    account          by        the     Department            while<\/p>\n
rejecting      the    claim       of    the     assessee(s)              for   deduction<\/p>\n
under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
            There    is     one        more     judgment            of     which       Shri<\/p>\n
Bhattacharya,         learned          Additional             Solicitor          General,<\/p>\n
appearing       on    behalf       of     the      Department,             has       placed<\/p>\n
reliance.           That    is    the     judgment            of    this       Court    in
\nRajasthan          State         Electricity         Board       Vs.      Associated<\/p>\n
Industries & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2382.                                     In<\/p>\n
that     case,           the       only      question         that      arose       for<\/p>\n
consideration           was     whether      pumping       out    water     from    the<\/p>\n
mines came within the meaning of the word manufacture,<\/p>\n
production, processing or repair of goods so as to claim<\/p>\n
exemption      from        duty      under    Notifications          issued      under<\/p>\n
Section       3(3)      of     the    Rajasthan       Electricity         Duty     Act,<\/p>\n
1962.         In       that    case,        the    first     respondent       was     a<\/p>\n
registered             public        limited         company,          engaged       in<\/p>\n
excavating stones from collieries and thereafter cutting<\/p>\n
and    polishing          them     into     slabs.         The   Rajasthan       State<\/p>\n
Government levied excise duty under the provisions of<\/p>\n
the    Act.        A     Notification         dated    23rd      March,     1962    was<\/p>\n
issued    by       the     State      under       Section     3(3)     of    the    Act<\/p>\n
granting exemption from tax on the energy consumed by a<\/p>\n
consumer in any industry in the manufacture, production,<\/p>\n
processing or repair of goods and by or in respect of<\/p>\n
any mine as defined in the Indian Mines Act, 1923.                                 This<\/p>\n
notification was later on superseded on 2nd March, 1963<\/p>\n
by which electricity duty came to be remitted in certain<\/p>\n
cases.    One more notification was issued on 1st November,<\/p>\n
1965 once again superseding earlier notifications.                                   By<\/p>\n
clause    (c)        of      the     said    notification,          the     State    of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan reduced the duty on the energy consumed in<\/p>\n
industries, other than those mentioned in clause (a) of<\/p>\n
the     notification               which     are      in      the      manufacture,
\nproduction, processing or repair of goods.<\/p>\n
         The        basic             controversy       which         arose           for<\/p>\n
determination in the said case was whether the activity<\/p>\n
of pumping out water from the mines came within the<\/p>\n
meaning       of     the        words      “manufacture”,           “production”,<\/p>\n
“processing or repair of goods”.                            While disposing of<\/p>\n
the matter, this Court, vide paragraphs 1 and 10, stated<\/p>\n
that    the    specific          case    of    the    company       was   that       the<\/p>\n
electrical         energy       was    consumed       for    pumping      out    water<\/p>\n
from    mines      to     make     mines      ready    for       mining   activity.<\/p>\n
This     aspect      is     very        important.           It     needs       to    be<\/p>\n
highlighted         that        the    case    of     the    company      was        that<\/p>\n
pumping out water from mines to make the                              mines ready<\/p>\n
for mining activity came within the ambit of the term<\/p>\n
“manufacture”.              This       argument       was    rejected       by       this<\/p>\n
Court,     after examining various judgments of this Court<\/p>\n
on the connotation of the word “manufacture”.                                   In our<\/p>\n
view,    the    judgment          of    this    Court       in   Rajasthan       State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board has no application to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case.             Even if        one reads paragraph 17 of the<\/p>\n
said judgment in the light of paragraphs 1 and 10, it is<\/p>\n
very clear that the only activity which came up for<\/p>\n
consideration before this Court in the case of Rajasthan<\/p>\n
Electricity Board (supra) was the activity of pumping<\/p>\n
out    water       from     a    mine     in    order       to    make    the        mine<\/p>\n
functional.         In the present case, we are not considered<\/p>\n
with such activity.               Therefore, in our view the judgment
\nof this Court in Rajasthan Electricity Board (supra) has<\/p>\n
no application to the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
            In the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
vs. Collector of Central Excise,<\/a> reported in 157 ELT 393<\/p>\n
(SC),       the    question        that       arose       for    consideration            was<\/p>\n
whether       cutting        of    marble          blocks       into     marble         slabs<\/p>\n
amounted          to   manufacture         for      the     purposes         of    Central<\/p>\n
Excise Act.            At the outset, we may point out that in the<\/p>\n
present case, we are not only concerned with the word<\/p>\n
“manufacture”,           but       we     are       also    concerned           with      the<\/p>\n
connotation of the word “production” in Section 80IA of<\/p>\n
the Income Tax Act, 1961, which, as stated herein-above,<\/p>\n
has     a     wider          meaning          as        compared       to     the        word<\/p>\n
“manufacture”.                Further, when one refers to the word<\/p>\n
“production”,           it     means      manufacture           plus     something         in<\/p>\n
addition thereto.                 The word “production” was not under<\/p>\n
consideration           before      this       Court       in   the      case      of    Aman<\/p>\n
Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra).                            Be that as it may,<\/p>\n
in    that    case,       it      was    held       that    “cutting”         of    marble<\/p>\n
blocks        into       slabs          per        se     did      not       amount        to<\/p>\n
“manufacture”.                     This       conclusion        was      based     on    the<\/p>\n
observations made by this court in the case of Rajasthan<\/p>\n
State       Electricity         Board      (supra).             In     our    view,       the<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in Aman Marble Industries Pvt.<\/p>\n
Ltd.(supra) also has no application to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case.             One of the most important reasons for<\/p>\n
saying so is that in all such cases, particularly under
\nthe Excise law, the Court has to go by the facts of each<\/p>\n
case.    In each case one has to examine the nature of the<\/p>\n
activity undertaken by an assessee.                     Mere extraction of<\/p>\n
stones may not constitute manufacture.                    Similarly, after<\/p>\n
extraction, if marble blocks are cut into slabs per se<\/p>\n
will not amount to the activity of manufacture.<\/p>\n
         In the present case, we have extracted in detail<\/p>\n
the process undertaken by each of the respondents before<\/p>\n
us.     In the present case, we are not concerned only with<\/p>\n
cutting of marble blocks into slabs.                        In the present<\/p>\n
case     we   are      also     concerned        with    the    activity     of<\/p>\n
polishing        and        ultimate    conversion        of   blocks      into<\/p>\n
polished slabs and tiles.               What we find from the process<\/p>\n
indicated herein-above is that there are various stages<\/p>\n
through which the blocks have to go through before they<\/p>\n
become polished slabs and tiles.                   In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
we are of the view that on the facts of the cases in<\/p>\n
hand, there is certainly an activity which will come in<\/p>\n
the    category        of    “manufacture”       or     “production”      under<\/p>\n
Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.                      As stated herein-<\/p>\n
above,     the    judgment        of    this     Court    in    Aman     Marble<\/p>\n
Industries Pvt. Ltd. was not required to construe the<\/p>\n
word “production” in addition to the word “manufacture”.<\/p>\n
One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while<\/p>\n
deciding      the      question        as   to    whether      the     activity<\/p>\n
constitutes         manufacture        or    production.             Therefore,<\/p>\n
looking to the nature of the activity stepwise, we are
\nof     the    view    that     the     subject      activity          certainly<\/p>\n
constitutes      “manufacture         or    production”        in     terms    of<\/p>\n
Section 80IA.         In this connection, our view is also<\/p>\n
fortified by the following judgments of this Court which<\/p>\n
have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the Department.\n<\/p>\n
         In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.<\/p>\n
Sesa Goa Ltd.,<\/a> reported in 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning<\/p>\n
of the word “production” came up for consideration.                           The<\/p>\n
question which came before this Court was whether the<\/p>\n
ITAT    was   justified      in    holding    that      the    assessee       was<\/p>\n
entitled to deduction under Section 32A of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining<\/p>\n
activity ignoring the fact that the assessee was engaged<\/p>\n
in extraction and processing of iron ore, not amounting<\/p>\n
to manufacture or production of any article or thing.<\/p>\n
The High Court in that case, while dismissing the appeal<\/p>\n
preferred      by    the    Revenue,       held   that    extraction          and<\/p>\n
processing of iron ore did not amount to “manufacture”.<\/p>\n
However, it came to the conclusion that extraction of<\/p>\n
iron    ore    and    the      various      processes         would    involve<\/p>\n
“production”          within         the      meaning          of       Section<\/p>\n
32A(2)(b)(iii)        of     the     Income       Tax    Act,       1961      and<\/p>\n
consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit<\/p>\n
of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax Act.      In that matter, it was argued on behalf of the<\/p>\n
Revenue that extraction and processing of iron ore did
\nnot produce any new product whereas it was argued on<\/p>\n
behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct<\/p>\n
new product.     The view expressed by the High Court that<\/p>\n
the activity in question constituted “production” has<\/p>\n
been affirmed by this Court in Sesa Goa’s case saying<\/p>\n
that the High Court’s opinion was unimpeachable.                          It was<\/p>\n
held by this Court that the word “production” is wider<\/p>\n
in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word<\/p>\n
“manufacture”.      It was held that while every manufacture<\/p>\n
can   constitute      production,           every    production        did    not<\/p>\n
amount to manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
         In our view, applying the tests laid down by this<\/p>\n
Court in Sesa Goa’s case (supra) and applying it to the<\/p>\n
activities      undertaken        by        the     respondents           herein,<\/p>\n
reproduced    herein-above),           it    is     clear       that   the    said<\/p>\n
activities would come within the meaning of the word<\/p>\n
“production”.\n<\/p>\n
         One more aspect needs to be highlighted.                         By the<\/p>\n
said judgment, this Court affirmed the decision of the<\/p>\n
Karnataka    High   Court    in    the       case    of        Commissioner    of<\/p>\n
Income Tax vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd,<\/a> (2001) 250 ITR 725<\/p>\n
(Kar).\n<\/p>\n
         In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.<\/p>\n
N.C. Budharaja & Co., reported in 204 ITR 412 (SC), the<\/p>\n
question which arose for determination before this Court<\/p>\n
was   whether    construction          of     a     dam     to    store      water<\/p>\n
(reservoir)     can     be   characterised                as     amounting     to
\nmanufacturing or producing an article.                     It was held that<\/p>\n
the word “manufacture” and the word “production” have<\/p>\n
received      extensive       judicial      attention      both   under    the<\/p>\n
Income Tax as well as under the Central Excise and the<\/p>\n
Sales    Tax    laws.         The    test    for    determining     whether<\/p>\n
“manufacture” can be said to have taken place is whether<\/p>\n
the commodity, which is subjected to a process can no<\/p>\n
longer   be    regarded       as    the    original    commodity     but    is<\/p>\n
recognised in trade as a new and distinct commodity.<\/p>\n
The word “production”, when used in juxtaposition with<\/p>\n
the word “manufacture”, takes in bringing into existence<\/p>\n
new goods by a process which may or may not amount to<\/p>\n
manufacture.       The word “production” takes in all the<\/p>\n
byproducts, intermediate products and residual products<\/p>\n
which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.<\/p>\n
         Applying the above tests laid down by this Court<\/p>\n
in Budharaja’s case (supra) to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
cases, we are of the view that blocks converted into<\/p>\n
polished slabs and tiles after undergoing the process<\/p>\n
indicated above certainly results in emergence of a new<\/p>\n
and distinct commodity.               The original block does not<\/p>\n
remain the marble block, it becomes a slab or tile.                        In<\/p>\n
the circumstances,        not       only    there    is    manufacture     but<\/p>\n
also an activity which is something beyond manufacture<\/p>\n
and   which    brings     a    new    product       into    existence     and,<\/p>\n
therefore, on the facts of these cases, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that the High Court was right in coming to the
\nconclusion     that      the        activity         undertaken           by    the<\/p>\n
respondents-assessees          did        constitute          manufacture        or<\/p>\n
production in terms of              Section 80IA of the Income Tax<\/p>\n
Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
        Before      concluding,          we    would    like       to    make   one<\/p>\n
observation.        If the contention of the Department is to<\/p>\n
be accepted, namely that the activity undertaken by the<\/p>\n
respondents herein is not a manufacture, then, it would<\/p>\n
have serious        revenue    consequences.                As   stated     above,<\/p>\n
each of the respondents is paying excise duty, some of<\/p>\n
the   respondents       are    job        workers       and      the     activity<\/p>\n
undertaken     by    them     has     been       recognised         by     various<\/p>\n
Government Authorities as manufacture.                       To say that the<\/p>\n
activity will not amount to manufacture or production<\/p>\n
under Section 80IA will have disastrous consequences,<\/p>\n
particularly in view of the fact that the assessees in<\/p>\n
all the cases would plead that they were not liable to<\/p>\n
pay excise duty, sales tax etc. because the activity did<\/p>\n
not constitute manufacture.                   Keeping in mind the above<\/p>\n
factors, we are of the view that in the present cases,<\/p>\n
the   activity      undertaken       by       each     of    the    respondents<\/p>\n
constitutes    manufacture          or    production         and,       therefore,<\/p>\n
they would be entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA of<\/p>\n
the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
        For   the       afore-stated            reasons,         Civil     Appeals<\/p>\n
filed by the Department stand dismissed with no order as<\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                     ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (S.H. KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
                     ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (J.M. PANCHAL)<\/p>\n
                     ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (H.L. DATTU)
\nNew Delhi,
\nDecember 02, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 Author: S Kapadia Bench: S.H. Kapadia, J.M. Panchal, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8036 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9812\/2008) Income Tax Officer, Udaipur …Appellant(s) Versus M\/s Arihant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIncome Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\\\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3111,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\\\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\\\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009"},"wordCount":3111,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009","name":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T09:13:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-tax-officerudaipur-vs-ms-arihant-tiles-marblespltd-on-2-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Income Tax Officer,Udaipur vs M\/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd on 2 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}