Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 203 1968 SLD 203 (1968) 68 ITR 320

CASE REFERRED No. 9 OF 1964, APRIL 19, 1967
P., JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C.J. AND KRISHNA RAO, J
T. Ananta Babu and B. V. Rammohana Rao for the Applicant. C. Kondaiah for the
Respondent

Hyderabad Construction Co. Ltd

v.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 5, read with section 45, of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Exemption - Position prior to 1-4-1993 - Position prior to 1-4-1993 - Whether explanation to section 45(d) is made applicable to section 5(1)(xxi) so that conditions necessary to qualify for exemption for main undertaking under section 45(d) are same as those which are necessary for exempting amount employed by it in a new and separate unit by way of substantial expansion of its undertaking - Held, yes - Whether words 'by it' in section 5(1)(xxi) would definitely indicate that net wealth employed in new and separate unit set up by way of substantial expansion of its undertaking, must be that of a company established with object of carrying on an 'industrial undertaking' within meaning of section 45(d) - Held, yes - Whether two conditions would be necessary to get exemption, viz., that not only should company be formed with object of carrying on an industrial undertaking in India, but also that it should actually be engaged in manufacturing, production or processing of goods or articles or in mining or in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power - Held, yes - Assessee-company carrying on business of executing contracts for construction of masonry work, roadways, etc. constructed a starch factory and also installed a carbon-dioxide treatment plant, claimed exemption in respect of these assets - WTO however, included same in its net wealth - AAC allowed exemption as requirements of Act were fulfilled - Tribunal held that assessee not having been established with primary object of carrying on of an industrial undertaking, would not be entitled to exemption, and further that assessee had not been carrying on an industrial undertaking of which there could be said to be a substantial expansion - Whether, since assessee did not satisfy conditions essential for exemption, assessee-company was not entitled to exemption claimed - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-company which was carrying on business of executing contracts for construction of masoary work, roadways, etc., constructed a factory for production of starch and also installed a carbon-dioxide treatment plant. It claimed exemption…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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