1995 (2) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether the assessee qualifies as an "industrial company" under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, regarding the classification of the assessee as an "industrial company" for tax purposes. The primary question was whether the activities of the assessee, which involved purchasing materials, cutting, welding, and assembling trusses for construction purposes, qualified as manufacturing under the definition of an "industrial company" as per section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.

The Appellate Tribunal had held that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing, and the income from these activities exceeded 51 percent. The Revenue contended that the activities did not constitute manufacturing and that placing trusses in buildings equated to construction, not manufacturing. The Revenue also relied on a previous judgment that had been reversed by the Supreme Court to argue against the assessee's classification as an industrial company.

The Tribunal's findings revealed that the assessee's activities involved sale of manufactured goods, fabrication of trusses, and labor charges on structural work, with a significant portion of the income attributed to manufacturing or processing of goods. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities met the criteria of manufacturing within the definition of an "industrial company."

The High Court, in its analysis, referred to a previous Division Bench decision and emphasized that for a company to be classified as an "industrial company," it was sufficient if the company engaged in the manufacturing of goods. The Court highlighted that the application of the Explanation regarding income attribution would only arise if the company was not primarily engaged in industrial activities. In this case, the Tribunal's findings supported the assessee's classification as an industrial company, irrespective of income attribution percentages.

The Court distinguished a previous Supreme Court judgment that had reversed a decision regarding a construction firm's classification as an industrial undertaking, noting that the facts of the present case supported the assessee's manufacturing activities. The Court ultimately answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, confirming the assessee's status as an "industrial company" under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.