TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee-company had been incorporated on 1-8-1980 the first return had been submitted for the period from 1-10-1981 to 30-9-1982 and that the assessee's own project was under construction during the year. The assessee had manufactured ' plate bending machine ' by getting various components manufactured from other engineering units and assembling them at the assessee's shop under the supervision of the directors of the company. However, the ITO did not take into account the said activity of the assessee for deciding the question whether the assessee was an industrial company and whether concessional rate of tax was applicable and also to decide whether deduction under section 80-I was allowable to the assessee. 4. The ITO laid stress on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other hand, was that when the main project was still under construction in the relevant year the assessee could not be regarded as industrial company and no relief under section 80-I was available. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and facts on record. In the report of the director it is specifically mentioned as under : " Pending completion of the project, your company had procured order for fabrication/manufacture of one machine which was successfully executed. This being done on hire basis the job resulted in a meagre profit of Rs. 5,900 from it preliminary expenses in part had been written off ....... your directors are hopeful for commencing commercial production during the current year. " In the profit and loss account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee-company who were mechanical engineers. The basic technical know-how in this activity had been supplied by the two directors who were mechanical engineers. In these circumstances the activity of the assessee would be regarded as activity of manufacture of the said plate bending machine. On the principle laid down in several decisions including Griffon Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 145 (Cal.), Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718 (Cal.), Orient Longman Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 477 (Delhi), CIT v. Neo Pharma (P.) Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 879 (Bom.). CIT v. Acrow India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 485 (Bom.) and CIT v. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 92 (Bom.). The Circular of CBDT No. 3....