137 ITR 879 (Bom.), CIT v. Acrow India Ltd.

191 ITR 92High Court1991#19656 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2019.

Judgments citing 137 ITR 879 (Bom.), CIT v. Acrow India Ltd.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Mrs. Cryogas Equipomnet Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1228/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1228 & 2025/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The DCIT / ACIT, Vs. M/s. Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Circle – 1(1)(1), Ltd., A-36, Ghanshyam Nagar Vadodara. Society – 2, GIDC Road, Manjalpur, Vadodara–390 011. [PAN No. AADCC 6489 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. Revenue by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Date of Hearing 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Both the insta…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…aid manufacturing activity in respect of the respective previous years, which are relevant to the aforesaid assessment years, was not less that 51 per cent of its total income." (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd.: (1991) 191 ITR 92(BOM) Held that: “It is not necessary that the manufacturing company must manufacture the goods by its own 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 m…

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

ITA/551/2013HC Delhi05 Feb 2015

Section 10B

…processing of goods. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 879 (Bom.), CIT vs. Acrow India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 485 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 92 (Bom.). In these cases, it has been held that assessee was not a trader but a manufacturer/processor engaged in manufacturing and processing activities, when these activities were undertaken by a third person, under the control and supervision of the assessee. In the present case we are not examining and deciding whether the respondent-asses…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2002HC Delhi22 Dec 2014

Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 88H

…ge 18 of 19 goods. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 879 (Bom.), CIT vs. Acrow India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 485 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 92 (Bom.). In these cases, it has been held that assessee was not a trader but a manufacturer/processor engaged in manufacturing and processing activities, when these activities were undertaken by a third person, under the control and supervision of the assessee. In the present case we are not examining and deciding whether the respondent-…