COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ORICON PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us at the instance of the CIT by the Tribunal reads as under :

(2.) IT is apparent from a perusal of this question that we are required by the CIT to consider only one aspect of the matter and not the entire aspect. In order to bring out this point more clearly a few facts may be stated.

(3.) THE Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the decision of the AAC was questioned on a two fold basis. The Revenue did not dispute that the assessee company processed goods during the course of its business of constructing buildings. It was, however, urged that since these goods were used by the assessee in its own construction work, the assessee company did not satisfy the definition of an industrial company and, therefore, was ineligible for the lower rate of tax. Alternatively, it was contended that since the assessee company had given sub contracts, it was not entitled to the benefit of the lower rate. These arguments of the Revenue were dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its appellate order (annexure "C" to the statement of case). The Tribunal rejected both the contentions. On the first contention, it followed its earlier order, wherein it has held that the company which carries on business of constructing buildings is an industrial company. It also found no substance in the distinction sought to be made out by the Revenue which was on the footing that the present assessee had to a large extent given sub contracts. According to the Tribunal, in all building contracts sub contracts are awarded to a greater or lesser extent.