9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Mehta & Company, Petlawad. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in respect of her capital invested in the firm, M/s. Mehta & Company, Petlawad. According to the assessee the above firm was an " industrial undertaking " and, therefore, the capital invested therein by the assessee was exempted. The claim was disallowed by the WTO on the ground that M/s. Mehta & Company did not carry out any processing and manufacturing activities. First appeal by the assessee before the AAC of wealth-tax was dismissed. The assessee filed second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore. The Appellate Tribunal found that firm, M/s. Mehta & Company in which the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or pressing of goods or in mining". Contention on behalf of the revenue is that the firm, M/s. Mehta & Company in which the assessee is a partner does not carry out the job of processing of cotton itself but gets it done through outside parties. Thus, according to the learned standing counsel the assessee could not get benefit of s. 5. Facts found by the Tribunal show that the firm, M/s. Mehta & Company purchased raw cotton, got it ginned and pressed through outside agencies and then packed the same into bales before putting them for sale. In view of the meaning assigned to the term " industrial undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the question in favour of the assessee. In Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718, similar question came up before the Calcutta High Court in respect of an assessee-company, which was only a publisher of books. The Calcutta High Court observed that though the publisher got the books printed by another printer, the assessee was still an industrial company because it processes the goods inasmuch as some of the activities had to be carried out by the assessee-company before the finished product was to be put into the market. The Allahabad High Court in CWT v. Mubarakali Khan [1980] 123 ITR 101 considered the expression " industrial undertaking " as defined in the Explanation to s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the W.T. Act. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
