TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether borrowed capital could be treated as part of capital for working out relief under section 80J notwithstanding rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (ii) Whether the assessee-company could be treated as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974. (iii) Whether export incentives and drawback of customs duty could be treated as income attributable to the processing of goods for reckoning whether the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974.
Issue (i): Whether borrowed capital could be treated as part of capital for working out relief under section 80J notwithstanding rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Analysis: The issue was concluded by the Supreme Court decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India. The statutory rule excluded borrowed capital from the computation of capital for section 80J purposes.
Conclusion: The answer was in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee-company could be treated as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee was engaged in processing prawns, including cutting and packing them in cartons for shipment. Relief under section 80J had also been granted in the assessment, treating the undertaking as an industrial undertaking, which supported the conclusion that the assessee was engaged in manufacture or processing of goods.
Conclusion: The assessee was held to be an industrial company, and the answer was in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether export incentives and drawback of customs duty could be treated as income attributable to the processing of goods for reckoning industrial company status under section 2(8)(c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974.
Analysis: Export incentives formed part of the receipts arising from the assessee's business and were treated as industrial profit. Duty drawback was also regarded as enhancing industrial profits because the duty had originally formed part of business expenditure.
Conclusion: The answer was in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the first question and failed on the remaining questions, leaving the assessee entitled to relief on the industrial company issues.
Ratio Decidendi: For section 80J and industrial company classification, borrowed capital is excluded by the governing rule, but processing activity and receipts integrally connected with the business, including export incentives and duty drawback, may form part of industrial profits and support industrial company status.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
