| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 967 1983 SLD 967 (1983) 142 ITR 460 |
Calcutta High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 78 OF 1976
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT REFERENCE No. 78 OF 1976
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Jeewanlal [1929] Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 80-I, read with section 80B and Schedule six of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction - Profits and gains from industrial-undertaking, etc., after certain dates - Whether expression 'aluminium' occurring in entry (2) of sixth schedule denotes merely aluminium metal and not aluminium articles - Held, Yes - Whether business of manufacture and sale of aluminium articles cannot be considered as priority industry within meaning of section 80B(1) and entry (2) to sixth schedule - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee company engaged in manufacture of aluminium articles was not entitled to relief under section 80-I - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium articles. The Tribunal held the expression 'aluminium' occurring in entry (2) of the sixth schedule to the Act denotes merely the aluminium articles. The Tribunal also held that on proper interpretation of section 80B(1) read with entry (2) to the sixth schedule, the assessee company could not be considered as a priority industry and thus was not entitled to relief under section 80-I On reference : HELD In view of the decision of the same High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 802, it was to be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'aluminium' occurring in entry (2) of the sixth schedule to the Act denotes merely the aluminium metal and not aluminium articles. The Tribunal was also justified in holding that the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium articles could not be considered as a priority industry within the meaning of the section 80B(1) and entry (2) to the sixth schedule and the assessee-company was not entitled to relief under section 80-I. Note: The case was decided against the assessee. JUDGMENT Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.-In the reference, two questions have been referred to the court: "(1)Whether on a proper interpretation of entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'aluminium' occurring in entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the said Act denotes merely the aluminium metal and not aluminium articles…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492