1991 (9) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med investment allowance and the assessing officer rejected the claim observing that the assessee was not a manufacturing concern. On appeal the learned CIT (Appeals) directed as under :---- " 2. The first objection in this appeal is directed against the action of the ITO in not allowing the claim of Investment Allowance amounting to Rs. 28,104. The ITO had disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-firm is not a manufacturing concern. In this regard it is claimed that the firm is a construction company and is covered under the definition of industrial undertaking. My attention in this regard has been drawn to the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Pressure Piping Co. Ltd. [1979] Taxation 53(3) 7 where a construction comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o placed on Shanker Construction Co. v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 463 (Kar.) in which it was held that an assessee, who was engaged in construction of dams and channels, was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. 5. We have considered the respective arguments. In our view since the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Minocha Bros. (P.) Ltd.'s case has dealt with the nature of buildings, it is not possible to hold that buildings are articles or things within the meaning of section 32A. The Hon'ble High Court was dealing with the definition of industrial company, which was defined to mean a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other power or in the construction of ships ....