1990 (3) TMI 116 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of deduction under section 80-I for construction activity.
2. Disallowance of car maintenance expenses.
3. Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to bank.

Issue 1: The main issue in this case is the refusal of the claim of deduction under section 80-I for the construction activity of the assessee, a registered firm. The assessee argued that construction of buildings should be considered an industrial activity as it involves the manufacture or production of an article or thing. The counsel for the assessee referred to various court decisions and definitions of terms to support the claim. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the term "article or thing" in section 80-I should not be extended beyond its intended scope by the Legislature. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of relevant terms and concluded that construction of a building could be considered as the manufacture or production of an article or thing, making the claim of the assessee justified.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the disallowance of car maintenance expenses. This issue was not discussed in detail in the provided text, but it was raised by the assessee in the appeal.

Issue 3: The third issue involves the disallowance of guarantee commission paid to the bank for issuing guarantees to contractees. The arguments put forth by the DR were not elaborated upon in the text, but it can be inferred that the DR contested the allowability of this expense under the relevant provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the main issue of deduction under section 80-I for construction activity, emphasizing that construction of a building could be considered as the manufacture or production of an article or thing. The decision on the other two issues, regarding car maintenance expenses and guarantee commission, was not explicitly provided in the text.