LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-polyflex-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-another-20221117/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

M/s Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
17 November 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 8260 of 2022
Result
Dismissed
Bench
M.R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh
Citation
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 127 : 2022 INSC 1211
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 10 S.C.R. 127 : 2022 INSC 1211
Headnote

Income Tax Act – s.80-IB – Deduction under – Appellantassessee manufactured ‘polyurethane foam,’ which is used as automobile seat – The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 and claimed deduction u/s. 80-IB – Assessing officer disallowed the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act – CIT(A) upheld the order of the assessing officer – However, ITAT set aside the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) – High Court set aside the order passed by the ITAT and restored the order passed by the assessing officer denying the deduction/benefit claimed u/s.80-IB of the Act – On appeal, held: The assessee shall not be eligible for the benefit u/s. 80- IB of the IT Act if it is found that the articles and/or goods manufactured by the assessee do not fall and/or classifiable under Eleventh Schedule of the Act – The assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam and supplying the same in different sizes/designs to the assembly operator, which ultimately is being used for car seats – Merely because the assessee is using the chemicals and ultimately what is manufactured is polyurethane foam and the same is used by assembly operators after the process of moulding as car seats, it cannot be said that the end product manufactured by the assessee is car seats/automobile seats – Polyurethane foam is an article classifiable in the Eleventh Schedule (entry 25), considering s. 80- IB(2)(iii), the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit u/s. 80-IB – The High Court has rightly held so and has rightly set aside the order passed by the ITAT. Dismissing the appeal, the Court

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

HELD: 1. The assessee shall not be eligible for the benefit under Section 80- IB of the IT Act if it is found that the articles and/or goods manufactured by the assessee do not fall and/or classifiable under Eleventh Schedule. According to the revenue, the assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam which falls under the Eleventh Schedule. However, it is the case on behalf of the assessee that the final product manufactured and sold by the assessee is automobile seats/car seats which is other than the manufacture of polyurethane foam. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has specifically observed and held that what is manufactured and sold by the assessee is polyurethane foam which is manufactured by injecting two chemicals, namely, Polyol and Isocyanate and the polyurethane foam which is manufactured by the assessee is used as ingredient for manufacture of automobile seats. The assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam and supplying the same in different sizes/designs to the assembly operator, which ultimately is being used for car seats. The assessee is not undertaking any further process for end product, namely, car seats. The polyurethane foam which is supplied in different designs/sizes is being used as ingredient by others, namely, assembly operators for the car seats. Merely because the assessee is using the chemicals and ultimately what is manufactured is polyurethane foam and the same is used by assembly operators after the process of moulding as car seats, it cannot be said that the end product manufactured by the assessee is car seats/automobile seats. There must be a further process to be undertaken by the very assessee in manufacturing of the car seats. No further process seems to have been undertaken by the assessee except supplying/selling the polyurethane foam in different sizes/designs/shapes which may be ultimately used for end product by others as car seats/automobile seats. In view of the above, when the articles/goods which are manufactured by the assessee, namely, polyurethane foam is an article classifiable in the Eleventh Schedule (entry 25), considering Section 80IB(2)(iii), the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 80-IB of the IT Act. [Paras 7, 8 & 10][133-F-H; 134-A-E, F-G]

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Vinbros and Company, (2015) 14 SCC 483; Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mumbai v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (2017) 15 SCC 254 : [2017] 7 SCR 631 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No. 623/2007, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: That the appellant – assessee is having a manufacturing unit at Pune in which the appellant – assessee is manufacturing ‘polyurethane foam,’ which is ultimately used a
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →