COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS TRINITY HOSPITAL
1999 P T D 237
[225 I T R 178]
[Rajasthan High Court (India)]
Before B.R. Arora and B.J. Shethna, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
TRINITY HOSPITAL
Income-tax Reference No.24 of 1992, decided on 10/01/1996.
(a) Income-tax
---Investment allowance---Condition precedent for allowance---Manufacture or production of article or thing---Meaning of "thing" in S.32-A---X-Ray machines, ultrasound scanner an foetal monitor installed in hospital-- Machines produce photographs of internal parts of the body which could be treated as things---Air-conditioner installed for efficient working of such machines and not for office---X-Ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and Air-conditioner entitled to investment allowance---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32-A.
(b) Income-tax---
----Investment allowance---Small-scale industrial undertaking---Amounts spent on machines not exceeding specified limit---Certificate obtained from Director of Industries ---Assessee was a small-scale industrial undertaking-- Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32-A.
(c) Interpretation of statutes---
---- Beneficial legislation---Liberal interpretation.
In order to claim investment allowance, it is necessary that the machinery or plant, (a) should be owned by the assessee; (b) should be wholly used for the purpose of business carried on by it; (c) the machinery or the plant specified in subsection (2) of section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be a new machine or plant installed in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of article or thing; and (d) to cover its case under a small-scale industrial undertaking, the aggregate value of the machinery and plant installed should not exceed the limit provided in Explanation (2) to section 32-A(2) of the Act. This provision has been made in the Act to give an incentive to the entrepreneurs to install machinery/plant to increase production. As it is a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation, which advances the purpose and object of the Act, sh6uld be given to these provisions and as these words "manufacture", "production", "article" and "things" have not been defined in the Act, they must be given the plain and simple meaning in the context in which they are used.
The dictionary meaning of the word "thing" is a product of work or activity; useful or appropriate object.
The assessee-firm was running a hospital/ nursing home in Jodhpur. For rendering efficient medical services to the patients, the assessee, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, installed in its hospital various machines including, (i) an X-Ray machine, (ii) an ultrasound scanner/ultra sonographic machine, (iii) a foetal monitor, and (iv) air conditioning equipment, to ensure the proper working of these machines.
The assessee claimed investment allowance on the amount spent for these machines. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed it. On a reference:
Held, (i) that the photographs of various parts of the body obtained by these machines are the resultant product of work or activity. They are the result of efforts and activities and give a result in black and white regarding the internal position of the parts of the body and are helpful for proper and efficient diagnosis. The photographs or the graphs obtained from these machines, which are the result of efforts or activity, therefore, can be said to be "thing" under section 32-A of the Act. The installation of these machines in the hospital by the assessee was for the purpose of the business of production of things. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in allowing investment allowance to the assessee.
(ii) That the assessee had spent Rs.4,28,196 on the installation of these machines. The amount invested was covered by Explanation (2) to section 32-A(2) and so far as the financial limit was concerned, the assessee was a small scale industry. The assessee produced the certificate issued by the competent Authority recognising the assessee as a small scale industrial undertaking and that certificate was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and relying upon the certificate issued by the Director of Industries, with whom the assessee had been registered as a small-scale industrial undertaking, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) admitted the assessee a small scale industrial undertaking. The Revenue, in the appeal filed before the Tribunal, had not challenged this finding of fact and this finding was affirmed by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid machines and equimpment could legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture of production of any article or thing as provided in section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) read with section 32-A(1) of the Act.
CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC); CIT v. Ramachandran (Dr.) (V.K.) (1981) 128 ITR 727 (Mad.); CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.); Deputy CST v. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC); Mittal Ice & Cold Storage v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 18 (MP) and S.B. Cold Storage Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 646 (Cal.) ref.
Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner.
Vineet Kothari for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
B. R. ARORA, J.---The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench Jaipur, by its order, dated September 23, 1991, for the assessment year 1986-87, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the investment allowance may be allowed on X-Ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and air-conditioning equipment as provided under section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) read with section 32-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these machines and equipments can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) read with section 32-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
The assessee, Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur, is a registered firm and is running a hospital/nursing home to the city of Jodhpur. For rendering efficient medical services to the patients, the assessee, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, installed in its hospital various machines including (i) X-Ray machine, (ii) ultrasound scanner/ ultra sonographic machine, (iii) foetal monitor, and (iv) air-conditioning equipment, to ensure the proper working of these machines. In installing these four items, the assessee spent Rs.4,28,196. The assessee, under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act,"), therefore, claimed investment allowance amounting to Rs.1,07,266 on the investment made by it for installing these machines/plants in its hospital. The Income tax Officer, "A" Ward, Jodhpur, by its order dated March 23, 1988, disallowed the investment allowance by holding that these machines only produce photos of the patients in technical digits and do not produce any article. The Income-tax Officer also held that the hospital is not a "production" or "manufacturing" unit. Dissatisfied with the order dated March 23, 1988, passed by the Income-tax Officer, PA" Ward, Jodhpur, in not allowing the deduction under section 32-A of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the machines installed, as per section 32-A of the Act. The relevant observation made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, reads as under:
"The running of a clinic with the facilities provided for X-Ray screening of abdominal organs (liver gall bladder, pancreas, kidney, ovary, etc.) and foetal monitor are commercial activities. Further, the appellant has been registered with the Director ofIndustries as small-scale industry. As per the aforesaid decision, the setting-up, of such machines constitutes an industry and investment allowance thereon is admissible as per section 32-A. Considering all the relevant facts and respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that the appellant is entitled to investment allowance on the machines installed under section 32-A."
Aggrieved with the order, dated August 30, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the Tribunal, by its order, dated January 12, 1990, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and maintained the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the investment allowance under section 32-A of the Act to the assessee. The Revenue, thereafter, moved an application under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal for referring the question of law mentioned in the application and the Tribunal, by its order, dated September 23, 1991, stated the case before this Court and referred the questions of law, mentioned in paragraph No. l of this order, for the opinion of this Court.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the investment allowance under section 32-A of the Act can be allowed to a small-scale industrial undertaking on the machinery and plant installed in its undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. These machines, namely, X-Ray machines, ultrasound scanner/sonogpraphic machines ad foetal monitor installed by the assessee in its hospital, do not manufacture or produce any article or thing and, therefore, no investment allowance can be allowed on the installation of these machines; and so far as the Air-conditioner is concerned, that was an office equimpment which is not entitled to any investment allowance. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has submitted that the X-Ray machines as well as the ultrasound scanner/sonographic machine and foetal hard monitor produce pictures and data and, therefore, it cannot be said that these machines are not producting any article or thing. So far as installation of air-conditioning equipment is concerned, that was installed to ensure proper working of these various machines installed in the hospital and therefore, it cannot be said to be an office equipment and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides that the investment allowance equal to 25 per cent. of the actual cost of the machinery or plant, is admissible to the assessee in respect of any machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used for the purposes of the business of manufacture or production of any articles or things, including the articles or things specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Act, carried on by it. As per the second proviso appended to section 32-A of the Act, this deduction in the form of investment allowance is not allowable in respect of: (a) any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation including any accommodation in the nature of guest house; (b) any office appliances or road transport vehicles; (c) any ship, machinery or plant in respect of which the deduction by way of development rebate is allowable under section 33 of the Act; and (d) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year.
For the purpose of grant of investment allowance, "small-scale industry" has been defined in Explanation (2) to section 32-A(2) of the Act. As per this Explanation, an industrial undertaking shall be deemed to be a "small-scale undertaking", if the aggregate value of the machinery and plant (other than tools, jigs, dyes and moulds) installed, as on the last day of previous year, for the purposes of the business of the undertaking, does not exceed (i) in a case where the previous year ends before Ist day of August, 1980, Rs.10,00,000, (ii) in a case where the previous year ends after the 31st day of July, 1980, but before the 18th day of March, 1985, Rs.20,00,000; and (iii) in a case where the previous year ends after the 17th day of March, 1985, Rs.35,00,000.
It is not in dispute that the assessee has installed the aforesaid four machines in its hospital for providing efficient medical services to its patients for a commercial purpose and invested a sum of Rs.4,28,196. II is also not in dispute that these machines have been installed by the assessee for its business activities and are being used for the hospital as such for investigation, etc. The only question that requires consideration, therefore, is: whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance for the installation of these machines? For admissibility of the investment allowance it is necessary that the machinery or plant, (i) should be owned by the assessee; (b) should be wholly used for the purpose of business carried on by it; (c) the machinery or the plant specified in subsection (2) of section 32-A should be new machinery or plant installed in the industrial under taking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of article or thing; and (d) to cover its case under a small-scale industrial undertaking, the aggregate value of the machine and plant installed should not exceed the limit provided in Explanation (2) to section 32-A(2) of the Act.
So far as conditions Nos.(a), (b) and (d) are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that the assessee satisfies these conditions. The only controversy, in the present case, which remains to be decided, is: whether the machinery or plant installed by the assessee, have been installed for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing including any article or thing specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Act? The question, which requires consideration, therefore, is whether the X-Ray machine, ultrasound scanner/ultra sonographic machine and foetal heart monitor are manufacturing or producing any article or thing and whether the air-conditioning equipment has been installed for the efficient working of these machines or is an office equipment?
For resolving this controversy, it is necessary to take into consideration the functions, purposes and use of the aforesaid machinery/plant in the business activities of the hospital. X-Ray machine: An X-Ray machine is an instrument by which photographs or X-Ray pictures in the form of shadow pictures are obtained with the use of X-Rays revealing the internal structure of the objects opaque to ordinary light.
Ultrasound scanner/ultra sonographic machine: This is an instrument which has the T.V. monitor set and a computer and works on sound waves picture of the abdominal organs (liver, gall bladder, pancreas, kidney, uterus, ovary, etc.) is produced and photographs are obtained which are extremely useful for diagnositic purposes.
Foetal heart monitor it is a machine which produces the picture and graphs of the heart rate of the foetus and uterine contractions of the mother.
These three machines, therefore, produce only the photos, picture and graphs. The X-Ray machines produces the shadow pictures with the use of X-Rays while the ultra sound scanner produces the picture of abdominal organs which are useful for diagnostic purposes, whereas the foetal heart monitor produces the picture and graphs of the heart rate of the foetus and uterine contractions of the mother. Does the production of these photos or pictures or graphs fall within the definition of "manufacture" or "production" of any "article" or "thing"?
The dictionary meaning of the word "manufacture" is: something made from raw materials by hand or by machine. According to Black's Law Dictionary (sixth edition) "manufacture' means the process or operation of making goods or any material produced by hand, by machine or by other agency; the production of articles for use from raw material or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or combinations whether by hand, labour or machine. The word "manufacture" came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Deputy CST v. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63. The Supreme Court, in this case evolved the test for determining whether "manufacture" can be said to have taken place or not and held that "commonly, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another and indeed there may be several stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of product may result but if it is only a change which takes the commodity to the point where the commercial commodity can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article, that a manufacture can be said to have taken place".
The dictionary meaning of the word production: is something that is produced naturally or as a result of labour and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary, the word "production" means the process of Act to producing. The word "produce" means to bring forward to show or exhibit, the bring into view or to notice.
The dictionary meaning of the word "article is a particular item of business or a particular object or substance.
As per Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "thing" means: object of value, a product of work or activity; whatever exists or is conceived to exist as a separate entity or as a distinct or individual quality, fact, or idea; an entity that can be apprehended or known as having existence in space or time; an inanimate object as distinguished from a living being; a written or spoken disclosure. As per the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (College Edition), the word "thing" means a material object without life or consciousness, an inanimate object something that is signified or represented as distinguished from a word, symbol or idea representing if.
The words "manufacture", "production" or "produce", "article" and "thing" used under the Income Tax Act in section 32-A and section 80-HH came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 and the Supreme Court, at pages 423 and 424 of the judgment, held that:
"The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word ' manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture...The word 'production' or 'produce' when used in juxtaposition with the word manufacture' takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. The next word to be considered is 'articles', occurring in the said clause. What does it mean? The word is not defined in the Act or the Rules. It must, therefore, be understood in its normal connotation-- the sense in which it is understood in the commercial world. It equally well to keep in mind the context since word takes its colour from the context. The expressions 'manufacture' and 'produce' are normally associated with movables---articles and goods, big and small. "
While interpreting the word 'thing', the Supreme Court at page 433 of the judgment, held that:
"So far as the use of the word 'thing' is concerned, it has no special significance inasmuch as both the Ninth Schedule and the eleventh Schedule contain a list of articles or things. Both the Ninth Schedule, to which along the un amended sub-clause(ii) applied, as well as the Eleventh Schedule, the articles and things wherein are excluded from the purview of amended sub-clause (iii), refer only to movable objects---called articles or things ...The association of words in former sub-clause (ii) and the present sub-clause (iii) is also not without significance. The words are: 'construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles and things.' respectively. It is equally evident that in these sub-clauses as well as in the Ninth and Eleventh Schedules, the words 'articles' and 'things' are used interchangeably. In the scheme and context of the provision, it would not be right to isolate the word 'thing', ascertain its meaning with reference to law lexicons and attach to it a meaning which it was never intended to bear."
The words "manufacture" and "production" used in section 32-A(2) (b)(ii) of the Act also came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mittal Ice and Cold Storage v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 18 and it was held that (headnote):
"The words 'manufacture' and 'production' are not defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is well-settled that when any Act does not define a word used in that Act, the Legislature must be taken to have used that word in its ordinary dictionary meaning. In common parlance, the words 'make', 'manufacture' and 'produce' are all used as synonyms and they relate to the turning out of finished products by the shaping or combination of raw materials or parts.
The meanings of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. The words 'manufacture' and 'production' occur in clause(b)(ii) of subsection (2) of section 32-A of the Act which provides that deduction for investment allowance is admissible to an assessee if the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled. One of those conditions is that the plant and machinery should have been used by the assessee in a small scale industrial undertaking for the purposes
of business of 'manufacture' or 'production' of any article or thing. The context in which the words 'manufacture' or 'production' occur shows that what is manufactured or produced in the industrial undertaking is marketable, capable of being passed on from hand to hand as a new and distinct commercial commodity."
After interpreting these words 'production' and 'manufacture', the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the assessee, who is operating the cold storage, is not entitled to claim investment allowance under section 32-A of the Act in respect of the machinery of the cold storage plant.
A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in S.B. Cold Storage Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 646 and it was held that "the assessee is not entitled to claim investment allowance with respect to the cold storage plant under section 32-A of the Act".
In CIT v. Shaw Wallance & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.), the question which came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court was: whether the investment allowance is admissible in respect of the computer centre set up in the industry; and the Calcutta High Court held as under (headnote):
"A computer is not mentioned in the Eleventh Schedule. The word ' production' has not been defined in the Act. The expression ' production of an article' means among other things, that which is produced, a thing that results from any action, process or effort, a product, a product of human activity or effort. The word ' manufacture' has also not been defined in the Act. The expression ' manufacture' is generally understood to mean bringing into existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in a substance. Having regard to the nature and function of the computer and the data processing system, it cannot be said that they are office appliances. A data processing machine is a complicated machine which cannot be easily operated by lay men and a special training is necessary in order to equip a person with the knowledge and art of operating these machines. The installation and operation of the machines is on a scientific basis and, even for the purposes of installation, certain special facilities have to be provided in the form of air-conditioning or particular temperature. The purposes for which such machines which can be described as computers are used are well-known and in highly scientifically developed systems, they have their own roles to play and they cannot be equated with office appliances which would be of a much simpler nature. The final end products, viz., printed materials and the statements, are entirely different articles or things from the data which are led into the computer and are transformed into instructions and computations through a series of programmers and processing and the same amounts to manufacture of an article or thing.
Having regard to the nature and function of the computer and the data processing system, it could not be said that they are office applicances. "
In CIT v. Dr. V.K. Ramachandran (1981) 128 ITR 727 (Mad.), the (a medical practitioner) purchased the X-Ray machine and installed it in his nursing home and claimed development rebate on this machine The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that (headnote): 'even a professional activity could be tinged with a commercial character if the indicia of commerce are manifest in. it. The way in which the assessee carried on the X-Ray activity was in no way different from a non-qualified person carrying on a radiological institute. The mere fact that a professional man had, as an adjunct to his professional activities, such an institute did not disable him from running it as a commercial venture and earning income there from. The Tribunal was right in its view and the assessee was entitled to development rebate.
" The provisions have been made in the Act to give incentive to the entrepreneurs to instal machinery/plant to increase production. As it is a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation, which advances the purpose and object of the Act, should be given to these provisions and as these words "manufacture", "production", "article" and "things" have not been defined in the Act, they must be given the plain and simple meaning in the context in which they are used.
It is true that these machines do not manufacture any article and produce only photographs of the internal parts of the body. The X-Ray machine produces shadow. pictures or photographs with the use of X-Rays which reveal the internal structure of the object opaque to the ordinary light. The ultrasound scanner/ultra sonographic machine is an instrument which has a T.V. monitor set and a computer and works on sound waves. A picture of abdominal organs (liver, gall bladder, pancreas, kidney, uterus, ovary, etc.) is produced and photographs are obtained which are extremely useful for diagnosis purposes while the foetal heart monitor is a machine which produces the picture and graphs of the heart rate of the foetus and unterine contractions of the mother. Admittedly, these photographs are not articles but whether they are "things". According to the Random House Dictionary, a "thing" is a useful or appropriate object, method, etc. According to Webster's Dictionary the meaning of the word "thing" is the product of work or activity. The photographs of various part of the body obtained by these machines are the resultant product of the work or activity. They are the ends and result of efforts and activities and give result in black and white regarding the internal position of the parts of the body and are helpful for proper and efficient diagnosis. The photographs or the graphs obtained from these machines, which are the result of efforts or activity, therefore, can be said to be "thing" as used in section 32-A of the Act. The installation of these machines in the hospital by the assessee was, therefore, for the purpose of the business of production of things. The installation of the air conditioning equipment was done for the efficient working of these machines. Both the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, have held that the air-conditioning equipment has been installed by the assessee for the purpose of efficient working of these machines and has not been installed for the purpose of office. This is a pure finding of fact. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in allowing investment allowance to the assessee.
The next question that requires consideration is: Whether the assessee is a "small-scale industrial undertaking? For attracting the provisions of the small-scale industrial undertaking, it is necessary that the investment made by the assessee installing these machines should be less than the prescribed limit provided by the Act. The assessee has spent Rs.4,28,196 of the installation of these machines. The amount invested by the assessee is, therefore, covered by Explanation (2) to subsection (2) of section 32-A of the. Act and so far as the financial limit is concerned, the assessee is a small-scale industry.
Whether the assessee fulfils the other conditions of small-scale industrial undertaking. In this connection suffice it to say that the assessee produced the certificate issued by the competent Authority recognising the assessee as a small-scale industrial undertaking and that certificate was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and relying upon the certificate issued by the Director of Industries, with whom the assessee has been registered as a small scale industrial undertaking, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) admitted the assessee as a small-scale industrial undertaking. The Revenue, in the appeal filed before the Tribunal did not challenge this finding of fact that the assessee is a small-scale industrial undertaking and the Tribunal also affirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of the Income-tax. As the question was neither raised nor it was decided by the Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be said to be a question arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal though in the facts of the case stated in the order, state the question fairly arises. In view of the findings of facts given by the lower authorities, it is conveniently held that the assessee was a small-scale industrial undertaking.
The question referred by the Tribunal are, therefore, answered as under:
Question No. l: Question No. l is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in directing that the investment allowance may be allowed on the X-Ray machine, ultra-sound scanner, foetal monitor and the air-conditioning equipment as provided under section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) read with section 32-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and
Question No.2: Question No.2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid machines and equipment can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in section 32-A(2)(b)(ii) read with section 32-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M.B.A./1671/FCOrder accordingly.