TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking and hence entitled to investment allowance ignoring the fact that its income is only from services rendered ? and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, for the purposes of entitlement of investment allowance, there is no condition that the assessee should itself be a mining concern ? " The assessee takes out ore and carries on the business of analysing the same to tender technical information to the clients. This activity of the assessee was held as not a mining activity and the assessee not a small scale industry by the Commissioner of Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deemed to be small scale industrial undertaking if the aggregate value of the machinery and plant of the assessee does not exceed the prescribed limit therein. There is no dispute that the assessee herein falls within the limit prescribed by the sub-section. The other question is whether the activity of the assessee will make it an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 32A(2)(b)(ii). Having regard to the decision of this court referred to above in I. T. R. C. No. 138 of 1985 (Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 463), etc, we hold that the activity of the assessee will be an activity entitling it to the status of an industry. Even assuming that the main activity of the assessee is rendering of service, even then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a cold storage plant was not machinery or plant installed for the manufacture or production of any article. Both these decisions are the result of their peculiar facts. It cannot be denied that the assessee used the machinery in question for extracting the iron ore. This extraction is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the assessee's business. In CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140, the Supreme Court pointed out that the expression "for the purpose of the business" has a wider scope and that its range is wide and that it may take in not only the day-to-day running of the business but also the rationalisation of the assessee's administration and modernisation of the industry, etc. So long as the machinery is used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
