2004 (4) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....subjected to concessional rate of tax on the ground that M/s. Martin and Harris (P.) Ltd. is an industrial company because it had manufactured pharmaceutical products for the assessee-company? 2. Whether, the conclusions and findings of the Tribunal that Messrs. Martin and Harris (P.) Ltd. can rightly claim that it is an industrial company because it is directly engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for the assessee-company are based on any materials and are perverse and vitiated by reason of inadmissible or irrelevant or partly relevant and partly irrelevant material and are surmises and conjectures? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to its conclusion that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... his clients submitted that questions Nos. 2 and 7 are not being pressed. It is therefore not necessary to answer the said two questions. The facts relevant to questions Nos. 1 and 3 are that for the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer ("the AO") rejected the claim of the assessee for being treated as an "industrial company" for the reason that the assessee had no manufacturing activity of its own. The assessee's pharmaceutical products were manufactured by M/s. Martin and Harris (P) Ltd., and the same were marketed through M/s. Walter Sushnell (P) Ltd. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was allowed relying upon the decision of the Calcut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Delhi High Court in Orient Longman Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 477. In that case it was observed that the business of the assessee to get the books manufactured by getting the manuscript, designing the nature of the book, finishing the anticipated product would fall within the meaning of "manufacture or processing" of goods. In Griffon Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 145 (Cal) a similar question arose. The judgment of the Supreme Court in CST v. Dr. Sukh Deo [1969] 23 STC 385 (SC) was noticed wherein it was observed that a manufacturer is a person by whom or under whose direction or control the goods are manufactured. The judgment of this court in A. Mukherjee's case [1978] 113 ITR 718 was also noticed. The judgment of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of the pharmaceutical goods. In view of the findings of the final fact-finding authority (the "ITAT") it must be held that the assessee is not an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1984. The facts relevant to questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are that the Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenditure incurred by the assessee for the two assessment years, namely, 1984-85 and 1985-86, on the ground that the same related to publicity. The disallowance was considered by the Assessing Officer under section 37(3A). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, held that the expenditure was not on account of advertisement and reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and directed him t....