9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance ?" The assessee an individual, takes contracts for construction of buildings for different part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing specified under section 32A of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the buildings and to that extent, the assessee is entitled to the grant of investment allowance. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412, clearly held that the assessee constructing buildings is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act as the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee bid manufactured certain articles and to that extent the assessee should be regarded as an industrial undertaking. But we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee as no such case was put forward before the Appellate Tribunal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co. v. ITO (3 ITD 172), were similar to the present case as well, Since there is no finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee was manufacturing certain articles independently, we are of the view that it is not permissible for the assessee to raise such contention that the assessee was manufacturing certain articles independent of the business activity carried on by the assessee. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
