9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court was delivered by D. R. DHANUKA J. -The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, Pune, has referred the following questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that on the merits of the case section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the assessee-company could not be considered as an industrial company. By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the Income-tax Officer to reframe the assessment and tax the assessee as a non-industrial company. By an order dated September 23, 1978, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee-company was an industrial company within the meaning of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 978, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the footing that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture of goods and section 104(4) of the Act was not applicable. By an order dated December 12, 1978, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune, rightly held that the Income-tax Officer was in error in applying section 104 to the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue that the assessee is not an industrial company or that the case, of the assessee is not covered under section 104(4) of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us as under : (i) Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. (ii) Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
