9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alinga Vilas Ginning and Decorticating Works. The assessee was a partner having 106th share in the first concern. The assessee was not a partner in the second concern but it leased out the machinery to that firm. The assessee claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxi) and (xxxii) respectively in respect of the industrial assets forming part of the sale business to the extent of Rs. 79,933 and in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner were not correct in so far as all the conditions required under s. 5 (1)(xxxi) and (xxxii) are satisfied in the present case. The machinery was applied for industrial purposes in an industrial under-taking and processing of goods were carried on both in the individual business as well as in the partnership. Reference was made in this connection to the Explanation to s. 5(1)(xxxi). The mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was a partner, it is pointed out that the machinery did not belong to the firm, even if the firm's activity be regarded as an industrial undertaking in so far as the firm did not own the machinery. Relief under s. 5(1) (xxxi) was not available. 4. We have considered the facts. The assessee has claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxi) in respect of the industrial assets of the value of Rs. 79,933. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials, the finished products are handed over by the same constituents who gave the raw materials instead of selling them to outsiders, does not make the business of the assessee any the less an industrial undertaking. The learned Dept. counsel brought to out notice the decision in ITA No 577 578 (MDS) 74-75 order dt. 27th March, 1976. The facts of this case do not apply to the present case. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
