CIT Vs. MEWAR OIL GENERAL MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, made to this Court, by the Tribunal, vide communication dated 10.8.93, referring four questions, for opinion of this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Act, as it then existed. The questions being as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified -

(2.) THE necessary facts are, that the assessment order was made for the assessment year 1984 -85 on 27.3.87, against which order appeal was filed by the assessee, and the learned Commissioner vide order dated 24.2.88 partly allowed the appeal. Then the matter was further carried to the Tribunal by both the parties, being assessee, and the revenue, and both the appeals were decided by the common order dated 12.7.91, whereby both the appeals were partly allowed. We have not detailed the aspects on which the appeals were partly allowed, or what additions were made, or deletions were made, as we are not concerned with all those aspects, for the simple reason, that our opinion is sought, only on the four questions, quoted above.

(3.) IN CIT v. Meyyappa Chettiar reported in : [1963]50ITR751(Mad) decided by Madras High Court, the matter related to a cinema studio building, which consisted of studio sheds, painting and make -up work, a laboratory for editing films, synchronising sound, etc. and a carpentry section, where lathes, sawing machines, etc. were installed, which were operated by the electric motors, were all held to be factory building. Then in case of CIT v. Engine Valves Ltd. reported in (1980) 126 ITR 347 again by Madras High Court, where the canteen was subject matter of consideration, and it was found, that canteen building must be regarded as factory building, being run for the benefit of the workers employed therein, and must be considered as part and parcel of the factory premises. This judgment in Engine Valves Ltd.'s case, relied upon the other judgments of Bombay, and Madras High Court, which considered the roads, fencing, culverts, and drainage etc. to be factory building, and after considering all these judgments, the principle was laid down, being, that to find out, whether a particular structure of construction falls within the category of factory building, or not, the question is required to be approached from the functional point of view. With this, the construction involved in that case was held to be factory building.