Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd. (Madras High Court)
Assessing Officer failed to take note of the vital factor namely that the property, which was sold by the assessee in Bangalore, was a ‘magazine’. Rule 2(31) of the Explosives Rules, 2008 defines the word ‘magazine‘ to mean a building or structure (other than an explosives manufacturing building) intended for storage of explosives, specially constructed in accordance with the specification provided under these Rules or expression ‘Chief Controller’ is defined under Rule 2(9) of the Explosives Rules, 2008 to mean the Chief Controller of Explosives.
Section 4(h) of the Explosives Act, 1884 defines the word ‘manufacture’ in relation to an explosive, which includes the process of (1) dividing the explosive into its component parts or otherwise breaking up or unmaking the explosive, or making fit for use any damaged explosive; and (2) re-making, altering or repairing the explosive. Thus, the definition of the word ‘manufacture’ as defined under the Explosives Act, 1884 is an inclusive definition and storing of bulk quantity of explosives and repacking for retail sale would undoubtedly fall within the meaning of the word ‘manufacture’. In terms of Rule 71 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, a person holding licence for possession of explosives granted under these Rules shall store the explosives only in the premises specified in the licence. Thus, possession, usage and sale of explosives are strictly regulated under the provisions of the Explosives Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder.
Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer did not take note of this vital factor, but was guided by the common parlance test given to an industrial undertaking. One more factor, which the Assessing Officer lost sight of, was the manner, in which, the first limb of Section 54G(1) of the Act is worded wherein the transfer of a capital asset includes machinery or plant or building or land or any rights in the building or land used for the purpose of business of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area. The second limb of Section 54G(1) of the Act is what had weighed in the mind of the Assessing Officer while denying the deduction under Section 54G of the Act. However, what was important to note is that where the capital gains arising from transfer of capital asset, being machinery or plant or land or building used for the purposes of business of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area effected in the course of or in consequence of the shifting of such industrial undertaking to any area other than an urban area, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 54G of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
