Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Agra Construction Corpn.

Cit vs Agra Construction Corpn.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 30, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/494873

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Reference No. 12 of 1986 30 September 2004
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: Head Note: INCOME TAX Investment allowance--AllowabilityAssessee engaged in construction activitiesHeld: Assessee carrying on contract business for construction of trubular trusses, girders, beams, and other structurals, rolling shutters and other civil works, was not entitled for investment allowance as...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Respondent

Agra Construction Corpn.

Legal References

Reported In
[2005]146TAXMAN31(All)

Excerpt

counsels: head note: income tax investment allowance--allowabilityassessee engaged in construction activitiesheld: assessee carrying on contract business for construction of trubular trusses, girders, beams, and other structurals, rolling shutters and other civil works, was not entitled for investment allowance as the construction activities undertaken by assessee did not amount to manufacture of article or things. income tax act, 1961 s.32a deduction under section 80-i--manufacture or productionconstruction of tubular trusses, beams, girders, rolling shutters and other structural and civil worksheld: assessee, carrying on contract business for constrcution of tubular trusses, beams, girders and other structural, rolling shutters and other civil works was not eligible for deduction under section 80-i as the activities undertaken by the assessee did not amount to manufacture of articles or things. income tax act, 1961 s.80-i in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. a.n. mahajan, for the revenue. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad1. the income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), for opinion to this court.'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that deduction under section 80i was to be allowed to the assessee by holding that the assessee was manufacturing or producing articles or things?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance under section 32a was to be allowed on the machinery used in the business of the assessee?'heard sri a.n. mahajan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.2. the present reference relates to assessment year 1982-83. the respondent-assessee is carrying on contract business for construction of tubular trusses, beams, girders and other structural, rolling shutters and other civil works. the activities undertaken by the respondent-assessee do not amount to manufacture of articles or things as held by the apex court in the case of cit v. n.c. budharaja & co. : [1993]204itr412(sc) wherein the apex court has held that construction activities are not exigible for investment allowance under section 32a of the act or section 80i of the act.3. respectfully following the view taken in the aforesaid case we answer the questions of law referred to us in the negative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. however, there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court.

'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under section 80I was to be allowed to the assessee by holding that the assessee was manufacturing or producing articles or things?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance under section 32A was to be allowed on the machinery used in the business of the assessee?'

Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.

2. The present reference relates to assessment year 1982-83. The respondent-assessee is carrying on contract business for construction of tubular trusses, beams, girders and other structural, rolling shutters and other civil works. The activities undertaken by the respondent-assessee do not amount to manufacture of articles or things as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that construction activities are not exigible for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act or section 80I of the Act.

3. Respectfully following the view taken in the aforesaid case we answer the questions of law referred to us in the negative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial