9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the whole of the work himself, or whether he obtained the assistance of other persons also for the work. The question whether or not a person is an employee is a question of fact. - On the own showing of the assessee, it has employed with it only five workers. The other workers were employed by the contractor. The workforce employed by the contractor will not be counted for the purposes of afore stated clause in view of the words "it employs". - 214 of 1999 with .227 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2009 - Prakash Krishna and S.C.Nigam,JJ Krishna Agrawal for the appellant. JUDGEMENT : These two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement as was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e(iv) of Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act. 5. Heard Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Department. 6. The facts which are not in dispute may be noticed brief: 7. It has been found that the assessee has employed less than 10 workers. Consequently the benefit claimed under the afore stated sections was denied as the authorities were of the opinion that to qualify an industrial undertaking it should 'employ' 10 or more workers in the manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power. The case of the assessee was that it had, on an average basis directly employed five workers and fifteen workers, on an average per day, were employed through contractor. 8. In other word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not called upon to interpret the word 'it employs'. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the appellant. 13. Aditya V.Birla versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others (1986) 157 ITR 470 is a case besides the point. It was a case under section 80-RRA of the Income Tax Act. 14. The above case was approved by the Apex Court in Central Board of Direct Taxes and others versus Aditya V.Bira (1988) 170 ITR 137 wherein it has been held that word "employ" is used in Section 80-RRA means the use of services of any person: it comprehends whole time servant or part-time engagee. It is not the case here. 15. In Commissioner of Income Tax versus V.B.Narania and Co.(2001)252 ITR 884, it has been held that a contract of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
