2002-VIL-32-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2002] 255 ITR 178 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No 5877 of 1999

Date: 21.03.2002

SACS EAGLES CHICORY

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

For the Appellant : R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate ( V. Ramasubramanian, Advocate)
For the Respondent : S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi , B. V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates)

BENCH

S. P. Bharucha C.J.I, N. Santosh Hegde And Arijit Pasayat

JUDGMENT

The question to be considered reads thus (see [2000] 241 ITR 319, 320):

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under sections 80HH, 80-I, 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

All that is on record in regard to the "process" that the assessee carries on is stated in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax thus:

"But if an analysis of the activity of making powder from the chicory roots is made, it will be found out that there are only two processes in making the powder from chicory roots, (i) roots are roasted, and (ii) after that they are powdered."

We have asked learned counsel for the assessee whether there is anything else that describes the process. There is apparently nothing else. If that is the only process, it does not satisfy the test laid down by this court in Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323.

The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.