TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee-company was an 'industrial company' entitled to the concessional rate of tax applicable to that class of assessees under Paragraph 'F' of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1969 ?" Relevant portion of section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, defines the expression "industrial company" for the purpose of the said Act as under : "'Industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining". (emphasis supplied). It is necessary to state the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement clearly provided that the assessee was obliged to provide machinery, drawings, specifications and instructions relating to manufacture of the said goods to Messrs. Vikhroli Metal Fabricators. The assessee exercised control over the manufacturing process undertaken by Messrs. Vikhroli Metal Fabricators limited. It was specifically provided by the said agreement that the assessee shall be responsible for supply of all the raw materials required and the assessee shall accept the finished goods only after a final inspection. The assessee reserved to itself the right to inspect the manufacturing process, etc. The assessee did not depute its own staff to work in the factory of Vikhroli Metal Fabricators. The assessee employed Messrs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee itself in the appeal arising from assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1965-66. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, has fairly invited our attention to the judgment of our High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 879 (Bom). In this case also, the question before the court was whether the assessee was an "industrial company" within the meaning of the said expression, as defined in the Finance Act, 1965, and whether the assessee was, therefore, entitled to concessional rate of tax. It was held by our court that the assessee need not manufacture the goods and articles in question by itself and even if the assessee got the same manufactured through some other party, it could be held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case are not identical with the facts of the above-referred case. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 134. In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of construction of buildings and the question before the court was whether the assessee could be considered as a company engaged in manufacture of goods and thus an "industrial company". It was held by the High Court of Delhi that the assessee in that case was not an industrial company and was not entitled to facility of tax at the concessional rate. In our judgment, this case is clearly distinguishable and is of no assistance to us. It is obvious that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, it was held by the court that the assessee was an industrial company since the manufacturing process was undertaken by the outside agency for and on behalf of the assessee. In this case, there is enough material to show that the assessee has engaged the services of Vikhroli Metal Fabricators limited for the fabrication of the goods and things mentioned in the Said agreement under its supervision and control with the help of technical know-how supplied by the assessee. The assessee also supplied all the raw materials to the contractor. For all practical purposes, this case is on all fours with the case decided by our High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 879. Neither learned counsel has been able to te....