TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim of the applicant under section 35B of the Act?" The second question need not detain us for long since, in several references, we have already held that weighted deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not deductible, these are freight and forwarding charges, packing and loading charges, bank charges and commission paid for procuring sales to Indian agents. These items would not fall within sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) ; no other sub-clause of the said section is attracted. Hence, the said question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The first question arises by virtue of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinued to produce the same product as earlier, i.e., steel wire and rods. We find that the Incometax Officer posed a correct question at the outset when he said that a new undertaking must be a new and identifiable undertaking, separate and distinct from the existing business and it must also be an undertaking which could be carried on independently of the old unit (Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977] 108 ITR 367 (SC)). Thereafter, he found that there was no new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from the existing business. In other words, there was no emergence of a new physically separate industrial unit which came into existence as a viable unit man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal denied relief to the assessee are irrelevant. Merely because pursuant to a single collaboration agreement the units in question came into existence it cannot be said that they are not new industrial undertakings or separate units. The fact that the assessee was getting articles produced from the new undertakings from abroad for manufacturing dashboard instruments earlier, shows that they were marketable 'commodities and they answered one of the tests adopted by the Supreme Court in determining whether an undertaking is a new industrial undertaking or not. The fact that there was common management or the fact that separate accounts had not been maintained, would not also lead to the conclusion that they were not separate undertakings.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 ITR 462 (Delhi), Khoday Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 646 (Kar) and Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 127 (Kar). Whatever may the features of the facts involved in those decisions, all of them ultimately lead to the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd.'s case [1977] 107 ITR 195. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 257, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 367 by following again Textile Machinery Corporation's case [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC). The basic question is whether the assessee has established a new unit of manufacture and whether it is an integrated unit. Unfortunat....