9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were admitted on the following questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the Revenue does not press question No.4. As regards questions Nos. 1 to 3, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has held that the assessee is not an industrial company and as the assessee-company has not declared and distributed dividend, the assessee was liable to pay additional income-tax under section 104(1)(a) of the Act. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Wardha, Bombay and Adilabad. It is not in dispute that the assessee at its Adilabad unit was running a ginning and pressing factory which constitutes a manufacturing activity. Since the income of the assessee from the manufacturing activity did not exceed 51 per cent. of the total income, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not an industrial company. In the Board's Circular No. 103 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as well as the Tribunal have noticed that in the assessment year 1983-84, the total income generated from the activities at all the three places was Rs.6,15,41,875 out of which Rs. 5,93,75,040 was from the Adilabad unit where the manufacturing activity was carried on by the assessee. It is further held that the total expenditure at Adilabad was far greater than the expenditure under the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
