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

V.P.ELHENCE, RAJENDRA
Budhwar Cold Storage – Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Officer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.L. Goel, A.K. Goel,S.D. Kapila

ORDER

Per Shri V.P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 14-3-1983 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The assessee, Budhwar Cold Storage, Ujhani, Budaun is an unregistered firm. The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 66,148 under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at the rate of 25 per cent on machinery and plant worth Rs. 2,64,554. The assessee claimed before the ITO that the cold storage involved manufacturing. However, the ITO held that the cold storage only involved processing and not manufacture or production of an article or thing. Therefore, the claim of investment allowance was disallowed. Since the industrial undertaking, in question, is situated in a backward district, deduction under section 80HH of the Act was also claimed by the assessee. The assessee did not file the prescribed audit report in Form No. 10C, as required under section 80HH(5), read with rule 18B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) and, therefore, the claim was rejected by the ITO, The first two grounds of appeal relate to these claims. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claims.

3. In further

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top