Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee, a construction contractor, was an "industrial company" within the meaning of section 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966.
Analysis: The definition of "industrial company" under section 2(7)(d) was applied to the assessee's construction business. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court, in the decision directly governing that definition, had held that the statutory language distinguished construction from manufacture or processing, and that construction activity other than ship construction was not brought within the definition. The contrary authorities relied upon by the assessee were treated as arising in different statutory contexts and not overriding the direct ruling on the relevant provision.
Conclusion: The assessee was not an industrial company under section 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966.
Final Conclusion: The tax treatment claimed by the assessee failed, and the assessments were sustained on the footing that the assessee did not qualify for the lower rate applicable to an industrial company.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of section 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966, ordinary construction activity does not amount to an industrial company unless the statutory definition is otherwise satisfied by the nature of the activity carried on.