Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 32A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. on 9 August, 1985
22. We also notice that the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court had referred to another decision in CIT v. Minocha Brothers
(P) Ltd., [(1986) 160 ITR 134], wherein the Division Bench had laid
down the 'test of end product' for the purpose of determining the
nature of activity of the assessee. The assessee therein was also a
contractor engaged in building construction and in the process of
that work manufactured doors, windows, etc. The doors and
windows were consumed in the building work itself and hence it was
held that it could not be described as a manufacturing process in
respect of those activities. The Delhi High Court held that the
business could not be divided into two parts, (a) making windows
and doors, and (b) construction, again for a claim under Section
80HH, wherein a percentage of the entire profits and gains was
ITA.15/2016
21
available for deduction. We would not think that this would apply in
the provision we are called upon to interpret, as already held.
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
3. Before the Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion
between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member (for short
'JM' & 'AM' respectively); which was referred to a third member,
again a JM, the Vice-President (VP), who concurred with the AM. At
the first instance, the JM found that RMC is a product of
manufacture following a decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal.
The JM also found that the vehicles would answer the description of
plant and machinery and hence the purchase price, is entitled to be
ITA.15/2016
3
considered for additional depreciation. The AM held that making of
RMC does not involve any manufacture and relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
N.C.Budharaja & Co., [(1993) 204 ITR 412. The issue was referred
to a third member and the third member agreed with the AM, to find
that there is no manufacture involved in the making of RMC.
1