TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rief 3. The facts leading to this appeal and the grounds raised therein are as follows: The respondent is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. One of such manufacturing unit is at Mithapur in Gujarat. Subsequently, it set up is a subsidiary company known as "Tata Fertilizers", but this subsidiary company amalgamated with the respondent under the order of this court passed on a company application on September 7, 1989. The respondent thereafter set up a fertilizer plant at Babrala in the State of U. P. Certain deductions were claimed by the respondent for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer disallowed some of the deductions claimed, particularly tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs are not for the purpose of business? (j) Whether the expenses incurred by the respondent towards maintenance of guest house can be allowed as deduction under section 37(4) of the Act?" 4. The rest of the questions though raised were not pressed into service. Hence, our order is confined to the questions raised. The appeal on other questions stands dismissed as not pressed. Consideration: Question (a): As far as question (a) is concerned, it is not in dispute that this question was not raised before the Tribunal. Mr. Desai submitted before us that under section 260A(6)(a) it is permissible for the High Court to determine any issue which is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The careful reading of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ependent for technology nor for inputs. He has observed that the closure of plant at Mithapur would not in any manner adversely affect the operation of the fertilizer plant at Babrala. 5. This order of the Assessing Officer has been mechanically confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai. As against this, the Appellate Tribunal has culled out the propositions of law based on various judgments of the apex court as well as of various High Courts in para. 28 of its order. It has summarised propositions and determined the tests on the question of unity of business. They are as follows: "(i) The nature of the two lines of business is not relevant. (ii) The fact that one business can be conveniently closed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious such relevant factors. The Tribunal also found the administration and management of funds of two units is common. The Tribunal has also recorded findings of fact that there was a functional integrity between the two units. It is in these circumstances that the deduction under the particular section was held allowable. 8. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the decisive test is the unity of control which is indicated by interlacing, interdependence and interconnection between the businesses and dovetailing of one into the other. In the present case, it is quite clear that the amalgamation of the subsidiary was allowed by the High Court. Thereafter it is for the management of the company to manage its affairs and the benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. The assessee not being a banking company, the judgment of the apex court could not have been relied upon to consider the case of a chemical unit. In answer to this, Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent, has drawn our attention to a subsequent judgment of the apex court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450, wherein the above referred proposition in the case of CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) has been approved. In the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC), whose business was of warehousing the foodgrains and not of investment, such deduction on the same footing was permitted by the apex court. In these circumstances, the resolution ....