2007 (4) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the respective parties. All these applications filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were admitted on the following questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the reference applications does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Revenue does not press question No.4. As regards questions Nos. 1 to 3, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has held that the assessee is not an industrial company and as the assessee-company has not declared and distributed dividend, the assessee was liable to pay additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent-assessee is an industrial company. The activities of the assessee-company were carried out at Wardha, Bombay and Adilabad. It is not in dispute that the assessee at its Adilabad unit was running a ginning and pressing factory which constitutes a manufacturing activity. Since the income of the assessee from the manufacturing activity did not exceed 51 per cent. of the total income, the As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it cannot be the sole deciding factor. In the present case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have noticed that in the assessment year 1983-84, the total income generated from the activities at all the three places was Rs.6,15,41,875 out of which Rs. 5,93,75,040 was from the Adilabad unit where the manufacturing activity was carried on by the assessee. It is furt....