w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot v/s General Contracts Company


Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL1986PTC025351

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. E. CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC192042

Company & Directors' Information:- A B CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105814

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1997PTC084794

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC214287

Company & Directors' Information:- D H CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PTC198200

Company & Directors' Information:- N J CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210HR2011PTC042559

Company & Directors' Information:- J P S CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2000PTC107170

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL CONTRACTS COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ1989PTC012627

    Civil Appeal No. 3207 of 2007

    Decided On, 11 September 2012

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.H. KAPADIA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

   



Judgment Text

None appears for the respondent, though served.

This civil appeal filed by the Department concerns Assessment Year 1987-1988. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is: whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32-A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Section 32-A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time, has been extensively quoted in the order of the assessing officer (see p.37 of the paper book). The assessing officer came to the conclusion that the assessee claimed to be in the business of mining; the only activity undertaken by it was removal of overburden/earth excavation work carried out for facilitating mining at the lignite project site at Rajpardi and Pandhro; and that the assessee was merely a labour contractor. These findings of fact have been upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and they have not even been discussed in the impugned judgment (General Contracts Co. vs. CIT, (2006) 206 CTR 10 (Guj)) of the High Court.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

For the aforestated reasons, the civil appeal filed by the Department is allowed with no order as to costs.
O R