Would the procurements of parts and assembling them to make windmill fall within the meaning of “manufacture” and “production” to be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB?

CIT Vs. Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 192 (Madras High Court)

The Supreme Court, in India Cine Agencies v. CIT(2009) 308 ITR 98, laid down that the test to determine whether a particular activity amounts to “manufacture” or not is whether new and different goods emerge having distinctive name, use and character. Further, the Supreme Court, in CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331, observed that the word “production” or “produce” when used in comparison with the word “manufacture” means bringing into existence new goods by a process, which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.

In this case, Madras High Court, applying the above rulings of the Apex Court, observed that the different parts procured by the assessee could not be treated as a windmill individually. Those different parts had distinctive names and only when assembled together, they got transformed into an ultimate product which was commercially known as a “windmill”. Thus, such an activity carried on by the assessee would amount to “manufacture” as well as “production” of a thing or article to qualify for deduction under section 80-IB.

Note: The definition of manufacture has been incorporated in section 2(29BA) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. from 01.04.2009, and it means, inter alia, a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing in to a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. Assembling of windmill at factory and putting them at site of customer apparently satisfies this definition of manufacture also.

NF