1984 (4) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion that the assessee firm is not a manufacturer or a processor. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down under s. 32A(b) (ii) or (iii) of the Act and the order passed by the CIT is bad in law for withdrawing the investment allowance of Rs. 7,628. 2. The assessee firm is engaged in carrying out contracts of different parties. It carries o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (India) P. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom), CIT vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 288 (Bom) and CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. 1980 121 ITR 212 (Ori) on the point of construction of a building holding to be a plant and an article. The assessee's claim is squarely covered by that decision of the Tribunal. Amendment to s. 32A(2) came into force from 1978-79. The Orissa High .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The ld. departmental representative, Shri K. Srinivasan, has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Bombay City-I vs. N.U.C. Private Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 377 (Bom). The Tribunal had held in that case that the manufacture of windows and door frames and concrete slabs and beams was directly related to the actual business of the company i.e., of production and construct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X