9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir Lordships of the Supreme Court. The assessee's activity of raising tea, selling tea and also the activity of raising paddy and other crops on the fallow land for the time being constituted an indivisible business. The accounts are all consolidated and the management is the same. There is no separate activity as such. All constitute a single activity. In such a situation, there can be no manner of doubt that the indirect expenses which are incurred in the head office and the branch office relating to the whole activity will have to be allowed in full without bifurcating a Portion on the ground that a portion is relatable to agricultural activity and, therefore, disallowable. Applying the above principles, we have no hesitation to hold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at application was refused by the Tribunal. Then the Revenue made an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to this court suggesting the following two questions: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had no evidence or had relied on irrelevant or partly irrelevant materials in holding that the assessee's activities of growing arid manufacturing tea and those of growing paddy, jute and other crops constituted an indivisible business and/or whether such finding of the Tribunal was otherwise unreasonable or perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of r. 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was correct in law in holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot addressed by any argument on the misapplication of the principle by the Tribunal based on this finding that growing of paddy and jute formed an indivisible business with the production of tea. On the other hand, we were addressed on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal was not correct or was really perverse. Our attention was drawn to two decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 207, where also the Tribunal had made a finding that different ventures did not constitute the same business. Similar is the position in the case of Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 223. It is on this basis we had previously discharged the rule. We also pointed out this to the learned advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
