1995 (2) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ote that the assessee's appeals are filed late by 601 days. Assessee has filed petitions seeking condonation of delay. After considering the same, we are satisfied with the reasons put forth for the delay in the filing of these appeals. Delay is accordingly condoned, and we proceed to dispose of the appeals of the assessee. 3. The only issue that is common in all these appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under s. 80J and s. 80 HH. 4. Assessee purchased HDPE and IDPE granules and got them converted into fabrics through various mills situated at Bangalore, Madras and Hospet. The fabric so obtained had porous surface and, therefore, it was again laminated with the same raw material to prevent leakage of goods. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asst. yr. 1981-82 and 1982-83, assessee preferred these appeals before us. 6. However, for the asst. yr. 1984-85, the CIT(A) III, Hyderabad who passed the appellate order for that year, observed that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in (1978) 113 ITR 718 (Cal) was accepted by the CBDT [(1982) 137 ITR 14 (St)] and that the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Neo Pharma (P) Ltd. (1982) 28 CTR (Bom) 223 : (1982) 137 ITR 879 (Bom) following the decision of the Calcutta High Court held that the assessee in that case, which was incorporated with the object of manufacturing and processing pharmaceuticals and which had used the plant and machinery of another company to carry on its manufacturing activity was an industrial undertaking. In that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ificates from M/s Jayalakshmi Industries, Nellore, International Polysacks & Laminators, Proddatur, and International Packaging Co. Proddatur who were carrying on manufacture on behalf of the assessee to prove those undertakings were employing more than the required number of workers and carrying on manufacture on behalf of the assessee and thus fulfilling the conditions prescribed, to entitle the assessee to the benefits of ss. 80J and 80HH. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the contentions of the assessee, and submitted that the assessee which is not owning any machinery on its own and which is not employing the required number of workers is not entitled to the deductions under ss. 80J and 80HH. 9....