Cit Vs. Ajmani Industries

.....of specified number of workersthe assessee is a rice miller and it has claimed for deduction under section 80j which was not allowed by the assessing authority as the assessee has failed to prove that more than 10 persons were engaged by it in manufacturing process. the said claim, however, had been allowed by the assistant appellate commissioner as well as by the tribunal.held: as the various processes starting from purchase of raw material and till sale of finished goods formed the integral part of manufacturing process and the workers employed in this process are the workers employed in the manufacturing process, the tribunal, therefore, has committed no illegality in allowing deduction under section 80j. income tax act, 1961 s.80j in the allahabad high court r.k. agarwal & prakash krishna, jj. - 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. mohammad - (appeals) that the assessee firm is an industrial undertaking and the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80j of the income tax act, 1961 ?' the reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84. 2. the assessee is a rice miller and it has claimed for deduction under section 80j which was not allowed by the assessing authority as the assessee has failed to prove that.....orderby the court 1. the income tax appellate tribunal, allahabad has referred following question 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 learned tribunal was, in law, justified in agreeing with the d.c. (appeals) that the assessee firm is an industrial undertaking and the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80j of the income tax act, 1961 ?'the reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.2. the assessee is a rice miller and it has claimed for deduction under section 80j which was not allowed by the assessing authority as the assessee has failed to prove that more than 10 persons were engaged by it in manufacturing process. the said claim, however, has been allowed by the assistant appellate commissioner as well as by the tribunal.3. heard sri a.n. mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue. none has appeared on behalf of the assessee.4. the tribunal has recorded the following finding on the above issue:'i have considered the submission of the learned departmental representative and have gone through the impugned orders of the authorities below. in para 1 of the impugned order the appellate assistant commissioner has specifically mentioned that more than 10 workers were engaged in the assessee's business and it was an industrial undertaking and the assessee was entitled for deduction under section 80j. the appellate assistant commissioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision mentioned in para 1 of the impugned order. i do not find any force in the contention of the learned departmental representative that the decision dated 2-5-1986 for the assessment year 1981-82 is sub-judiced because he failed to give details of that order and he also failed to file copies of the relevant orders and also failed to cite that t.t.a. no., so that it can be said that the order if sub-judice. for want of these.....