9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income-tax requested this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal along with a statement of facts under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee who is a partner in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant assessment years. According to the Department, the assessee is essentially a plantation company and it received share income from the registered firm, which manufactures tea and, therefore, the assessee cannot be considered as an industrial company. The Assessing Officer has, therefore, held that the assessee is primarily an agricultural company and that the inclusion of the share income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partnership-firm would be the business of the partners. This view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy [1969] 73 ITR 751. The second question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the assessee satisfied the Explanation to section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act for the relevant assessment year. According to the Explanation the income attributable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is an industrial company for the relief of taxation. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are supported by the decision in CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy [1969] 73 ITR 751 (SC) and also as per the Explanation to section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act for the relevant assessment years under consideration. Therefore, we consider that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
