9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 1982-83 and order dated January 29, 1992, passed in ITA No. 439/Ind of 1987 for the assessment year 1984-85 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 holding that the assessee is an 'industrial undertaking' engaged in manufacture or production of articles or things and that the assessee is accordingly entitled to deduction under sections 80HHA and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The years of assessment involved are 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1984-85, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to be considered as an industrial undertaking and was thus entitled to deductions under section 80HHA and 80J of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 1982-83 and allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 and demolished the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 (annexures E and F). The Department then filed the applications under section 256(1) of the Act. On these applications, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our consideration. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted only if all the requirements therein are satisfied besides the other requirements in the other provisions of the section." We are satisfied that the process of pressure piling did not amount to manufacture and that the requirements of law are not satisfied in the instant case to hold that the assessee was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. In view of the factual matrix and legal position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture or production of articles or things. It is held by the apex court that the activity of construction of the dam could not be characterised as manufacture or produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
