Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bry Air (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 17 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998) 150 CTR Del 675
Author: R Lahoti
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti J.
This petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question for the opinion of the High Court:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-I in respect of income from engineering and design charges and also other income ?"
2. It is not disputed that the assessee respondent is an "industrial undertaking" engaged in the manufacturing activity of de-humidifiers. During the course of such activity, the assessee-respondent has made earnings on account of engineering designing fee. However it is not disputed that the assessee is not rendering professional advice to others and thereby earning the said fee. The engineering designing activity is related only to the article manufactured and produced by the assesee itself. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that the engineering designing activity would be a part of manufacturing activity and hence covered by the expression "profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking" as used in section 80-I of Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be found fault with.
2. It is not disputed that the assessee respondent is an "industrial undertaking" engaged in the manufacturing activity of de-humidifiers. During the course of such activity, the assessee-respondent has made earnings on account of engineering designing fee. However it is not disputed that the assessee is not rendering professional advice to others and thereby earning the said fee. The engineering designing activity is related only to the article manufactured and produced by the assesee itself. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that the engineering designing activity would be a part of manufacturing activity and hence covered by the expression "profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking" as used in section 80-I of Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be found fault with.
3. However, the assessee has also derived income from rent, interest scrap, difference in exchange rate, etc. Such income from other sources has also been allowed the benefit of section 80-I by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the question of law does arise to the extent of receipts under these heads-whether they could be treated as "profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking".
3. However, the assessee has also derived income from rent, interest scrap, difference in exchange rate, etc. Such income from other sources has also been allowed the benefit of section 80-I by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the question of law does arise to the extent of receipts under these heads-whether they could be treated as "profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking".
4. In its appellate order, the Tribunal has not recorded a clear finding as to the figures of profits and gains derived by the assessee from such other sources. In paragraph 3 of the appellate order of the Tribunal dated 13-9-1994, we find a reference having been made to pages 33 to 35 of the paper book No. 1 before the Tribunal wherein such details are found to have been mentioned. Accordingly, the question as suggested by the revenue needs to be reframed.
4. In its appellate order, the Tribunal has not recorded a clear finding as to the figures of profits and gains derived by the assessee from such other sources. In paragraph 3 of the appellate order of the Tribunal dated 13-9-1994, we find a reference having been made to pages 33 to 35 of the paper book No. 1 before the Tribunal wherein such details are found to have been mentioned. Accordingly, the question as suggested by the revenue needs to be reframed.
5. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court :
5. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court :
"Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-I in respect of `income from other sources' ?"
6. While drawing up the statement of the case, the Tribunal shall clearly state the heads and the amounts covered under "income from other sources" which are referred to at pp. 33-35 of the paper book-I before the Tribunal and included in the expression "also other income" as used in the question suggested by the revenue.
6. While drawing up the statement of the case, the Tribunal shall clearly state the heads and the amounts covered under "income from other sources" which are referred to at pp. 33-35 of the paper book-I before the Tribunal and included in the expression "also other income" as used in the question suggested by the revenue.
7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. No order as to costs.
8. No order as to costs.
