1988 (4) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Mansukhlal Jechandbhai is 1982-83. 3. The activities of M/s. Mansukhlal Jechand are to purchase kala-kapas directly from the agriculturists, to obtain cotton and cotton seeds from kala-kapas by manual labour, to gin and press cotton by outside ginning press and to sell cotton bales. 4. On the aforesaid facts, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act, in respect of their respective share of interest in the firm of M/s. Mansukhlal Jechand. The WTO rejected the claim made by the assessees on the ground that the firm was not an "industrial undertaking". 5. Before the AAC, relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718 (Cal.), it was submitted on behalf of the assessees....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d our attention to the Explanation to section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act which defines "industrial undertaking", which was considered by the Hon'ble High Court. He, therefore, urged that the orders of the AAC should be reversed. 7. The learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, supported the orders of the AAC by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CWT v. Smt. Premlatabai [1982] 137 ITR 329. In that case also, the point involved was about exemption claimed u/s 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessees highlighted the fact that the facts obtaining in the case of the assessees are even stronger than that obtaining in the reported case. He further poin....