COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/81/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01012531201302 September 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following a previous judgment, held that the assessee's activities did not constitute manufacturing. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities. The core of the dispute was whether polishing and assembling crystals constituted manufacturing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's process of polishing and assembling crystals amounted to manufacturing under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.81 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

BANGALORE-III, BANGALORE.

2.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTAL AND DETECTORS (I) LTD., SY. NO.171/2, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HOODI RAJAPALYA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560048. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANKUR PAI, FOR SRI. K.R. VASUDEVAA, ADV.,) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14-09-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:

I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012 DATED 14-09-2012 AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DATED 04-11- 2011 IN APPEAL NO.157/C-12(3)/CIT(A)-III/BNG/2010-11.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel for the assessee.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities while the assessee is only polishing the crystals and

thereafter assembling the glass and crystals. The process undertaken by the assessee would not bring anything new into existence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union India Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Merchants Co. Ltd. reported in 1963 AIR SC 791 has differentiated processing from manufacturing?”

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed in ITA No.351/2009 c/w ITA No.352/2009.

4.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →