TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn by Shri Patil, appearing for the respondent assessee, to a decision given in the assessee's own case and reported in CIT v. Oricon P. Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 296. When we gave that decision (in [1985] 151 ITR 296), we made it clear that the question then referred to us pertained to one narrow aspect of the matter and not the entire or larger aspect. This will be clear from the observations made in the said judgment at pages 297, 298 and 299 of the report. In the said decision in [1985] 151 ITR 296, we opined that for the purposes of the said assessment year, and accordingly for the purposes of the said reference, the Revenue did not dispute that the assessee-company processed goods during the course of its business of constructing buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had referred the Bench to a decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212, but the said decision was distinguished on facts. Ultimately, the Bench held against the assessee and negatived its claim to be considered as an industrial company. Shri Patil, appearing for the assessee, drew our attention to another decision reported in the very same volume of ITR in CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (India) P. Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 333. The point considered in the said decision was slightly different and the difference is well illustrated by the question which was whether the assessee-company which carried on the business of laying pressure piling foundations for buildings by specialised patented method could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench, such ancillary activity could be properly regarded as a feeding activity. In the view that it took, the Bench, therefore, negatived the claim of the assessee to be regarded as an industrial company and answered the question accordingly in the negative and against the assessee. The Delhi High Court had occasion to consider a similar question in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 134. The assessee before the Delhi High Court was a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of buildings. The Delhi High Court referred to several judgments and, following the decision of this court in CIT v. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 696, held against the assessee, observing that the assessee-company cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
