9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant previous year. 2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the repairing of motor car was 'processing of goods' within the meaning of the definition of 'industrial company' appearing in section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979 ('the Act'). It may be stated in this connection that a lower rate of tax is applicable to industrial companies if they come under the aforesaid definition. The aforesaid definition is as below : " 'Industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. Explanation : For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that its claim should have been accepted. Reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision in the case of Griffon Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 145 (Cal.). In that case, it has been decided that the assessee need not itself possess the manufacturing plant or machinery and can get the goods manufactured or processed through some body else, and yet it can be an 'industrial company'. Reference was also made to the decision in the case of CIT v. Casino (P.) Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 289 (Ker.) for the proposition that processing consists of changing of goods resulting in a commercially different articles. Further, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Commercial La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the said decision is against the assessee because producing food articles out of the raw materials in a hotel was not even considered as processing of goods. Further, he referred to the decision in the case of Addl. CIT v. Chillies Export House Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 73 (Mad.), for the proposition that merely making goods fit for the market does not amount to processing of goods so as to bring an assessee engaged in such activities within the aforesaid definition of 'industrial company'. He, therefore, urged that the assessee was not an industrial company as it was not engaged in processing of goods. Further, he raised an additional point, namely, that the assessee has not shown that the income arising from the processing of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture or process the goods itself or can get that activity done by another concern in order to become an 'industrial company'. Similarly, in the case of Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. the activity involved was quite different. It was not a repairing job that was done there. The assessee in that case was producing new articles which were not in existence before. In the case before us, the assessee was not engaged in any such activity. For the above reasons, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed erred in holding that the assessee was engaged in the processing of goods within the meaning of the aforesaid definition of 'industrial company'. We, therefore, vacate his order and restore that of the ITO on this point. 8. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
