9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of whether the business of a firm qualifies as an industrial undertaking under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii). Analysis: The case involved references under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 to determine if the business of a firm, M/s. Bharat Stone Works, Bokaro Steel City, qualifies as an industrial undertaking for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The firm was engaged in extracting stones and boulders, crushing them with machinery, and selling them as small chips. The assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1), clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Wealth-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, stating that the activity did not involve manufacturing or processing. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the activity as a mining/manufacturing process. The key contention revolved around the interpretation of section 5 of the Act, which outlines assets not included in the net taxable wealth. Clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) specifically exempt the value or interest in any industrial undertaking from taxation. The term 'industrial undertaking' was defined to include businesses engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods or in mining. The court analyzed the activities of the firm, noting that unearthing and crushing boulders constituted mining and the process of crushing transformed the boulders, qualifying as a manufacturing process. Consequently, the firm was deemed to be an industrial undertaking eligible for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the business of the firm qualified as an industrial undertaking under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The partners were entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii). The judgment favored the assessee against the Revenue, and as no appearance was made on behalf of the assessee, no costs were awarded. The court directed the transmission of the judgment to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
|
