JUDGMENT (Per D. R. Dhanuka, J.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'C' has referred the following questions to this Court in a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the activities of the assessee company, it could be held that the assessee was a manufacturer of the articles in question ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the assessee as an 'Industrial Company' in respect of the assessment year under consideration and directing the Income-tax Officer to tax it accordingly ?" The relevant assessment year is 1973-74. Before the question as to whether the assessee company is liable to be considered as an industrial company or not is considered, it is necessary to set out the material and relevant facts. Some of the relevant facts are as under : (a) The assessee manufactures pharmaceutical goods. The assessee started manufacturing the various pharmaceutical goods of its own with manufacturing plant and machinery owned by it at its own factory. The assessee continued to do so till the year 1959. Thereafter, the plant and machinery was transferred by the assessee to its associate concern Roche Products Ltd., another pharmaceutical concern and the assessee started getting its products manufactured from the said Messrs Roche Products Ltd. retaining its control over the manufacture. Since then the assessee has been getting its products manufactured through the said associate company by paying it manufacturing costs, supplying raw materials, bearing certain manufacturing charges etc. During the middle of the relevant assessment year, the assessee started manufacturing pharmaceutical products once again with its own plant and machinery. Thus, during the earlier part of the year, the assessee used to get the pharmaceutical products manufactured through the said associate concern, and in the latter part of the year the assessee used to manufacture the said products by itself. The assessee used to exercise sufficient control including quality control etc. while getting the said goods manufactured through Roche Products Ltd. The assessee was thus engaged in business of manufacturing the goods in the question. The assessee used to exercise sufficient control including quality control etc. while getting the said goods manufactured through Roche Products Ltd. The assessee was thus engaged in business of manufacturing the goods in the question. (b) In the appeals pertaining to assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that the assessee was an industrial company within the meaning of the relevant Finance Acts and was entitled to be so treated for the purpose of rebate of tax. In the judgment of the Tribunal in the case pertaining to assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon its judgment in the appeal of the same assessee pertaining to previous year. The learned counsel for the assessee has, therefore, filed a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 30th September, 1972 in respect of the appeals filed by the Department in the proceedings pertaining to earlier years. By consent we have taken the said copy of the judgment on record. In our judgment, the answer to this question is squarely covered by the judgment of our High Court in the case of CIT, Bombay City II v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. reported in 137 ITR 879. In this case, it was held that although the plant and machinery employed for the purpose on manufacture belonged to Pharmed and the services of certain employees were also utilised in that process, the manufacturing activity was really that of the assessee. It is not necessary that the manufacturing company must manufacture the goods by its own plant and machinery at its own factory. If in substance the manufacturing company has employed another company for getting the goods manufactured by it under its own supervision or control, the assessee can be considered as a company engaged in manufacture of goods and, thus, an industrial company. Mr. Dalvi has also invited our attention to the fact that in the above referred judgment reported in 137 ITR 879, the Division Bench of our Court had relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd., reported in 113 ITR 718, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes has already accepted the correctness of the said judgment reported in 113 ITR 718 in its Circular No. 347, dated 7th July, 1982. Mr. Dalvi is right in this submission. Mr. CIT v. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd., reported in 113 ITR 718, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes has already accepted the correctness of the said judgment reported in 113 ITR 718 in its Circular No. 347, dated 7th July, 1982. Mr. Dalvi is right in this submission. Mr. Jetley, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that the assessee cannot be considered as a manufacturing company as the assessee did not depute its own staff at the factory and did not exercise supervision over the manufacturing activity undertaken by Messrs. Roche Products Ltd. While manufacturing pharmaceutical goods for the assessee. It is not absolutely necessary that the assessee must depute the supervisory staff or exercise direct supervision over the manufacturing process of the kind suggested by the learned counsel. It is, sufficient if on an overall view of the matter it is found that it was the assessee company who was the real manufacturer and the assessee had merely employed the agency of some one else through whom the goods were caused to be manufactured. It is also not necessary that the assessee must pay the wages of the workers employed in the manufacturing process. We have considered the factual date in this case in the light of the judgment of our High Court reported in Neo Pharma's case referred to here in above and we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in the view which it took. In the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.