1985 (12) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny for the quarrying, blasting, collection and carriage, stacking of boulders and metal at the mine roads required for the construction of mine roads at Kudremukh. Jaiprakash Associates (P.) Ltd. had undertaken a contract job from Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. for the construction of mine roads at Kudremukh. The assessee was to undertake the above job with the help of the following machines: 1. Terex Loader 1 2. Tata Tippers 1 3. Excavators 3 4. Dozer D-9G 1 5. Drott TD-20 1 6. Stone Crusher 1 3. The assessee claimed reliefs under sections 32A, 80HH and 80J. The ITO was under the impression that the assessee was a contractor. He observed that the business of a contractor was not an industrial undertaking and that it was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ust amount to an industrial undertaking and that it should be engaged in construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing. This question is directly covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M.R. Gopal [1965] 58 ITR 598. It was held in this case that the process employed in converting boulders into small stones with the aid of machinery is a manufacturing process and the undertaking is an 'industrial undertaking'. The Court had held that such an undertaking was entitled to the exemption under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to section 80J of the 1961 Act. In view of the above direct authority, it is not necessary to refer to other decisions cited at the Bar. 6. The learned depa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on carries any weight. In the first place, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the latter was already in existence before Jaiprakash Associates (P.) Ltd. was constituted. He also submitted that the assessee had been carrying on the above business independently of the business of Jaiprakash Associates (P.) Ltd. In the second place, we also do not think that the above decision has any application to the facts of the assessee's case. In the cited decision, the question for consideration was whether the assessee-company was either wholly or mainly engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods. That question is not before us in the assessee's case. The assessee's case on the other hand, is governed by the principl....