Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (4) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the plant and machinery which was used for the purpose of the business carried on by it. However, the ITO disallowed this claim of the assessee on the ground that the plant and machinery was not used for the purpose of the business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing as contemplated in s. 32A(2) (b) (iii). Aggrieve by this, the assessee preferred appeals to the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the work of erection of plant and machinery involved a number of manufacturing activities comprising the fabrication, commission of the plant etc., and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the investment allowance under s. 32A. The CIT(A) following the decision dated 13th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. HYDEL CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. (1984) 20 TTJ (Del) 518 (SB) : (1983) 6 ITD 575 (Del) (SB). Against this, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of fabricated items and construction of thermal stations, steel plants, requiring fabrication of structural insulations of piping, painting, assembly of equipments, etc., in the customers locations. It is further submitted that these activities involve manufacturing of steel structurals from steel rods, steel pipes, angular steel which are absolutely essential for erection of the plant and machinery. It is further submitted that these steel structures are fabricated by cutting, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xt, the question that arises for consideration is whether the aforesaid activities of the assessee constitute production or manufacture of an article or thing as contemplated in s. 32A. 5. In MINOCHA BROS. (P.) LTD., case relied on by the department the question that came up for consideration was whether manufacture of doors and windows by the assessee while carrying on the business of building construction would amount to manufacture or production of an article or thing as envisaged in s. 32A. The Delhi High Court has held that this process does not involve the element of manufacture or production since the production of the doors and as such the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of s. 32A. However, in the present case, the fabric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal following the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT vs. N.C. BUDHARAJA CO. (1980) 121 ITR 212 (Ori) had held that the erection work of the assessee involved a number of manufacturing activities comprising erection, fabrication and commissioning of the plant and such an activity would come within the meaning of manufacture or production of an article or thing as contemplated under s. 32A and consequently allowed the benefit of investment allowance to the assessee. Again, this Tribunal in the case of ELEMECH INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTIONS vs. ITO has held that the assessee who carried on job work of fabrication of steel rods, steel sheets into steel structures like cranes etc, was entitled to the investment allowance on machinery i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The present appeal is against the afford mentioned order of the CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that since this interest has been levied under s. 217 no appeal against such an order would lie to the CIT(A) and, therefore, his entertaining the appeal and cancelling the interest is not justified. Against this, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. Since the assessee has sent the estimate of advance-tax, the question of levying interest under s. 217 does not arise for consideration. Though an appeal does not lie against the order passed under s. 217 levying interest, however, since the assessee denied his liability to be assessed un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates