1993 (7) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and 80-1. 3. The business of the assessee is of ship breaking. The assessee carried on such business in Bombay and Jamnagar. The assessee claimed in his return deduction under section 80HH and 80-1. The claim of the assessee was not admitted by the Revenue authorities as because. the assessee did not comply. with the requirement of the section, so far as ,the ,filing. of the audit report is concerned. 4. Shri Balkrishna Jhaveri, learned counsel for the assessee, appeared before us.' It was submitted that ship breaking has to be considered as an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80HH and 80-1. Our attention was invited on the Tribunal's decision rendered in the case of First ITO v. Rama Ship breaking Yard (1988) 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss of the assessee was not, coming within the ambit of an industrial undertaking. The decision of the' Bombay High Court and of the Tribunal was not brought before the Assessing Officer. For the, first time, the precedents to buttress the claim of the assessee were brought. before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) declined to accept the claim of the assessee on the ground that the audit report Was not, submitted as per 'the requirement of the section. The Tribunal in the case of Rama Shipbreaking Yard (supra) held that the activity of shipbreaking amounts to manufacturing activity. The Bombay 'High Court in the case of Indian Metal Traders (supra) held that: "the scrap iron and steel which were obtained by the res....