1977 (4) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....74-75. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals are considered together and are disposed of by this order. 2. The assessee, an individual, is the proprietor of a concerns, M/s. Indra Agencies. By mistake of it has been mentioned in the department's grounds of appeal that he was a partner in the aforesaid concern, but it is not in dispute that he was the proprietor. The assessee had claimed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the business. 3. The ITO had declined to grant exemption under the aforesaid provisions stating that there were no manufacturing activities as such and the business was not a manufacturing concern. 4. The assessee appealed to the AAC. It was submitted that the business was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions as it was engaged in the manufacture and sale o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cies is an 'industrial undertaking' and the assessee is entitled to exemption provided in s. 5(1) (xxxii) by not understanding the facts of the case. The firm M/s. Indira Agencies in which the assessee is a partner purchases kapas and issues them as such to ginning factories for converting or processing it to cotton for the wages paid for it. The factories which are third parties process these kap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the department there was clearly manufacturing. The only point which survives and on which the learned departmental representative placed stress was that even if there was manufacturing the same was not done by the assessee himself in his factory. We do not find anything in the aforesaid provision which requires that the entire manufacturing should be done by the assessee in his own factory. E....