Law:

Section:

Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from priority industries - Whether assessee-company, which was engaged in business of manufacture of tele-communication equipment, fell within definition of 'priority industry' and, thus, was entitled to benefits under section 80-1 and also under section 33 - Held, yes Facts The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of tele-communication equipment as also fabricating and assembling it. The ITO treated it as falling within the definition of a priority industry and allowed benefits accordingly. The Additional Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 and relying upon the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 held that telecommunication equipment fell outside item 17 of the Sixth Schedule. On appeal, the Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's claim and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. On reference : Held A provision in a statute must, if it is clear, be interpreted as it reads. Reference to External aids in interpretation may be resorted to only if there is an ambiguity. There being no ambiguity in the instant case, reference could not be made to the provisions of the 1951 Act or for that matter anything else. Where the Legislature intended recourse to be taken to the 1951 Act for the purposes of the Sixth Schedule, it specifically so provided, e.g., in item No. 4 the 1951 Act has been expressly provided. Further, there is 'no warrant, nor any underlying assumption that an article can fall only under one or the other of the items therein set out. Thus, typewriters fall within sub-item 1 of item 13 thereof, which deals with commercial, office and household equipment. But typewriters, if of the electronic variety, would also fall within sub-item 8 (electronic equipment) of item 5 (electrical equipment). Equally, an item of tele-communications covered by item 6, if of the electronic variety, also falls within sub-item 8 of item 5. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim. G.S. Jetley and K.C. Sidhwa for the Applicant. C.B. Mehta for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Bharucha, J.-The only…

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