| Case ID |
3cb10ea9-3626-4bea-96c0-412119a62bd4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 3 OF 1988 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 15, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the applicant was not entitled to the deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because he did not own any plant or machinery and did not employ the required number of workers in a manufacturing process. The applicant's activities did not qualify as an industrial undertaking as defined under the relevant laws, which stipulate that to be eligible for deductions under section 80-I, an entity must be involved in manufacturing or production employing a specified number of workers with or without the aid of power. |
| Summary |
In this landmark case, the Allahabad High Court examined the eligibility for tax deductions under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case centered around Mahender Kumar Aggarwal, who claimed deductions for profits from an industrial undertaking. However, the court determined that the applicant's operations did not meet the criteria for an industrial undertaking as he neither owned the necessary machinery nor employed the requisite number of workers. The judgment emphasized that section 80-I applies strictly to those engaged in manufacturing or production activities, reiterating the importance of adhering to legislative requirements for tax benefits. This ruling clarifies the definition of industrial undertakings in tax law, ensuring that only those genuinely engaged in manufacturing qualify for deductions, thereby reinforcing compliance and integrity in tax claims. Key terms such as 'industrial undertaking,' 'Income-tax Act,' and 'tax deductions' are pivotal for understanding this case and its implications within tax law. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
R.K. AGRAWAL,
K.N. OJHA
|
| Lawyers |
Vikram Gulati,
Shambhoo Chopra
|
| Petitioners |
Mahender Kumar Aggarwal
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 2592,
(2005) 277 ITR 71
|
| Other Citations |
Orient Longman Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 477/5 Taxman 98 (Delhi),
CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain [1982] 135 ITR 372/10 Taxman 109 (All.),
CIT v. Western Mechanical Industries (P.) Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 265 (Bom.),
CIT v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 370/53 Taxman 349 (All.),
CIT v. Penwalt India Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 813/[1991] 58 Taxman 133 (Bom.),
CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Asphalts [2004] 266 ITR 626/136 Taxman 170 (Mad.),
CIT v. Vijay Granites (P.) Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 606/140 Taxman 371 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
80-I
|