Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Fourth Income-Tax Officer vs Dr. E.U. Mane on 18 March, 1982 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs V.K. Ramachandran on 10 January, 1980

4. So far as the first question is concerned the answer is clearly given by the Madras High Court in the case of V.K. Ramachandran (supra). Even if it is presumed that the assessee is a professional, his activities are tinged with a commercial character. He has to operate the X-ray machine and develop the films. Although these may be professional activities, they are essentially of a commercial nature. The professional qualifications which the assessee has do not in any way change the character of the commercial activity he is carrying on. We have, therefore, to hold that the assessee is carrying on a commercial activity. As held by the AAC, it was not necessary that manufacture or production need be carried on only in a large factory complex.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

The claim for development rebate was allowed by the Tribunal and its decision was confirmed by the High Court on the ground that even a professional activity could be tinged with a commercial character if the indicia of commerce are manifest in it. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548, where the definition of the word "industry" was considered. In the opinion of the AAC, the ITO had denied investment allowance solely on the ground that the assessee had not installed the machinery for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, although the ITO had not spelt out his idea in so many words. The AAC went on to consider the meaning of the word "industry". He held that the word "industry" does not necessarily mean a unit essentially involving in it a factory complex. The then referred to the dictionary meanings of the words "manufacture" and "production". As the assessee converted raw films into finished goods by which process there was a change of a permanent nature, he held that the assessee was engaged in the activity of manufacture or production. He further held that what the assessee produced was an "article" or "thing". On the above reasoning, he directed that the investment allowance should be allowed to the assessee. The revenue is in appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document
1