TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness and that, therefore, the assessee was a firm entitled to registration ? From the statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal, we find the fact situation to be as follows : M/s M. P. Bazaz and others (hereinafter described as the " assessee " ) filed two returns for the assessment year 1978-79 corresponding to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1978. The first return related to the period April 1, 1977, to November 7, 1977, and the second return related to the period November 8, 1977, to March 31, 1978. The status declared in the returns filed by the assessee was that of a partnership firm. An application in Form No. 11A was also filed on March 30, 1978, claiming registration of the assessee-firm under the Act. Evidently, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct in their conclusions regarding status, even though the assessee had not assailed the orders for the previous years. It was emphasised that any conclusion for the previous year would not operate as res judicata, as each assessment year is separate and self contained. Relying on the partnership deed dated December 1, 1973, it was explained that party No. 1 of the said deed on the one hand and the rest of the parties on the other hand jointly owned half of a single-storeyed house property. They joined together for the purpose of carrying on business in real estate. To reflect the intention, a partnership deed was drawn up ; a loan was obtained from the bank, construction of the first floor was undertaken thereafter ; the first floor o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....building, letting out on hire the building so constructed do amount to business. Accordingly, it held that the status of the assessee should be taken as a partnership firm. It, however, held that, in the appeal, they could not decide the question of registration Hence it directed that the status of the assessee should be taken as that of a firm as it was unable to give any direction as to whether the assessee is to be treated as a registered firm or an unregistered firm. The stand before the Tribunal has been reiterated by the parties before us. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the question as referred to this court for opinion does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal had not decided the ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". When a word is defined to "mean" something, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive as was indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross [1960] 30 Comp Cas (Ins) 13 ; AIR 1960 SC 971. Where, however, the word defined is declared to "include" certain things, the definition is extensive. (See Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay [1961-62] 20 FJR 113 ; AIR 1962 SC 29). In Smith v. Anderson [1880] 15 Ch. D. 247, 258 (CA), Jessel M.R., after citing definitions of "business" from several dictionaries, said, "anything which occupies the time and attention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a business, it was entitled to registration. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Revenue were also considered by this court in Narasingha Kar's case [1978] 113 ITR 712 (Orissa). The tests indicated in those two cases were applied and conclusions were arrived at. In Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547, the apex court has observed that, an activity carried on continuously in an organised manner with a set purpose and with a view to earn profits is "business". Similarly, when the assessee took a plot of land on lease, constructed some structures thereon and let them out to shop-keepers and stall-holders, the apex court construed the activity to be business. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation....