1986 (2) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was an industrial company Within the meaning of section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1972 ?" Section 2 (6) (c) of the Finance Act, 1972, provides : ... (6) For the purposes of this section and the Fir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 22,128 is seen to be paid as outside processing charges. The assessee cannot, therefore, be treated as an industrial company. Mere supervision by the assessee cannot be considered as 'processing' done by the assessee." The assessee appealed against the order. Allowing the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found : "2.... It is seen therefrom that the appellant is also engaged in proces .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter course as it would have been an onerous responsibility to start a factory of its own, install plant and machinery and engage labour and create certain permanent commitments. The payments made by the assessee towards the processing of the nuts have been made under specific heads, such as roasting wages, peeling wages, shelling wages,etc., as demanded by the factories in which the processing is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocessing charges. This means that the bulk of the processing charges has been paid to outside agencies. It is on that assumption that the Officer found that the assessee was not engaged mainly in processing. The fact that the processing was not done in the factory of the assessee, but in the factory of someone else would not necessarily mean that the assessee is not mainly engaged in the processi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIT v. A. Mukherjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718 (Cal) ; CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. 1982] 137 ITR 879 (Bom) and Orient Longman Ltd v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 477 (Delhi). In the circumstances, we must, on the basis of the facts found by the Tribunal with reference to the relevant records, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X