SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 56

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA, P.K. GOSWAMI AND P.S. KAILASAM JJ.
Textile Machinery Corporation Limited, Calcutta, Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 772 and 773 of 1972,
D/- 25-1-1977.
Advocates appeared
M/s. N.A. Palkhiwala and Dr. D. Pal, Sr. Advocate (M/s U.K. Khaitan, S.R. Agarwal and Parveen Kumar, Advocates with them), for Appellant; Mr. V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General, (Mr. T.A. Ramchandra and Mr. R.N. Sachthey, Advocates with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
D.Pal, N.A.PALKHIWALA, PARVIN KUMAR, R.N.SACH, S.R.AGARWAL, T.A.Ramachandran, U.K.KHAITAN, V.P.Raman

Headnote:

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 15-C – Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction – Trial court - According to the Tribunal the existing business of = consisted of manufacturing boilers, wagons, etc. and for that purpose was purchasing the spare parts, forgings and castings from outside - Tribunal came to the conclusion that the business of the new industrial undertaking was to manufacture those very spare parts - Hence the Tribunal concluded that it could not be said that the undertakings were formed out of existing business to come within the mischief of the exclusion clause in Section 15-C - Tribunal rightly relying upon Tata Iron and Steel State of also held that even though the manufactured products of the new industrial undertakings were mostly used in other business of manufacturing boilers wagons, etc. element of profit was there and the extent of the same could be ascertained as was maintaining separate books of account – Held, If any undertaking is not formed by reconstruction of the old business that undertaking will not be denied the benefit of Section 15-C simply because it goes to expand the general business of on some directions. As in the instant case, once the new industrial undertakings are separate and independent production units in the sense that the commodities produced or the results achieved are commercially tangible products and the undertakings can be carried on separately without complete absorption and losing their identity in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business - Business of the is of heavy engineering. The two new undertakings are independently producing articles which may be of aid of the principal business but yet undertakings are distinct and not reconstruction out of the existing business - Use by of the articles produced in its existing business or concept of expansion are not decisive test in constructing Section 15-C. The High Court is not right in holding the two undertakings as formed by reconstruction of the existing business - Reconstruction of business involves the idea of substantially the same persons carrying on substantially same business. It is stated on behalf of the Revenue that the same company in the instant case continues to do the same business of heavy engineering no matter certain spare parts necessary as components to completion of the end-product are now manufactured in business itself - Fact that is carrying on the general business of heavy engineering will not prevent him from setting up new industrial undertakings and from claiming benefit under Section 15-C if that section is otherwise applicable - However, in order to be entitled to benefit under Section 15-C following facts have to be established by subject always to the time-schedule in the section - Appeals allowed

Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.:- These two appeals by certificate are from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court since reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I v. Textile Machinery Corporation. The two appeals relate respectively to two assessment years 1958-59 (calender year 1957) and 1959-60 (calendar year 1958). The matter relates to the claim by the assessee for exemption of tax under Section 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (briefly the Act).

2. The matter came up before the High Court on a reference under Sec. 66 (1) of the Act. The two questions referred to were as follows:-

(1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Steel Foundry Division was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Jute Mill Division set up by the assessee-company was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied?

3. The facts may briefly be stated:

The assessee (the appellant herein) is a heavy engineering concern manufacturing boilers, machinery parts, wagons, etc. For the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the assessee claimed exemption of tax under Section 15-C of the Act in respect of the profits and gains derived from its Steel Foundry Division and a similar claim for relief under Section 15-C in respect of its profits and gains derived from its Jute Mill Division for the year 1959-60.

3-A. The assessee had previously in the earlier years bought from outside the castings manufactured in the Steel Foundry Division which was started in the assessment year 1958-59 and continued thereafter. Again, similarly in the year 1959-60, in addition to the manufacturing of castings in the Steel Foundry Division the assessee started the Jute Mill Division where the parts made out of the raw material supplied by the Boiler Division by machining and forging them were given to the Boiler Division of the assessee. It was found that out of a total sale of Rs. 28,23,127/- of steel castings goods worth Rs. 18,39,433/- were used in connection with the various Divisions of the company. In respect of the Jute Mill Division, the Income-tax Officer found that out of the total sales of Rs. 13,03,509/- sales to the Boiler Division totalled Rs. 11,89,812/- and sales to outside the Jute Mill Division totalled only a sum of Rs. 1,13,697/-. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the above facts, held the undertaking as expansion and reconstruction of the business already existing and hence the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Sec. 15-C of the Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal of the assessee and accepted the claim for exemption under Section 15-C. According to the Tribunal both the Steel Foundry and the Jute Mill Division of the assessee were new industrial undertakings. The above conclusion was reached on the basis of several facts found by the Tribunal. These are that the machinery was new, was housed in a separate building and that industrial licences had to be obtained for manufacturing the parts in question. According to the Tribunal the existing business of the assessee consisted of manufacturing boilers, wagons, etc. and for that purpose the assessee was purchasing the spare parts, forgings and castings from outside. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the business of the new industrial undertaking was to manufacture those very spare parts. Hence the Tribunal concluded that it could not be said that the undertakings were formed out of the existing business to come within the mischief of the exclusion clause in Section 15-C (2) (i). The Tribunal rightly relying upon the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 48 ITR 123 also held that even though the manufactured products of the new industrial undertakings were mo























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top