Addl. CIT v. Southern Structural Ltd.

110 ITR 164High Court1977#14740 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80IBSection 80IB(2)Section 80IB(4)

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Southern Structural Ltd.

ITO-27(3)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI vs. VIRAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6718/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80I

…lready made before prescribe date, but license was obtained shortly thereafter, such lapse must be viewed as purely technical, and it would not come in way of grant of deduction under Section 80IB. 1. In the case Addl. CIT v. Southern Structurals Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 164 (Mad.) it was highlighted that manufacture or 4 Viral Industries, Mumbai. production of articles must be in some commercial sense for allowability of Deduction U/s. 80IB. 1. R.M. Chemicals Private Limited Indore Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1), Indore ITA No.111/Ind/2012 - Dt. 11.05.2012 The assessee had filed an appeal aggrieved by…

ITO 33 (3) (4), MUMBAI vs. SUDARSHAN R. KHARBANDA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Ahdpk9148D

Section 80I

…v. Even in Punam Chandra Prem Raj vs CIT 207 ITR 895 (Raj.) High Court held that ginning of cotton is process, thus entitled to deduction. 2.6. There are certain contra decisions also, which are discussed hereunder:- a) Addl. CIT vs Southern Structural Ltd. 110 ITR 164 (mad.) wherein it was held that production of proto type will not amount to manufacturing. b) Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 252 ITR 883 (SC) held that tyre retreading is not manufacturing. c) In Appeejy Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 77 taxman 208 (Cal.) it was held that packing of tea is not manufacturing thus not ent…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, THANE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2033/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 Pan – Afypk0221L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Tikekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…xiv. Even in Punam Chandra Prem Raj vs CIT 207 ITR 895 (Raj.) High Court held that ginning of cotton is process, thus entitled to deduction. 2.6. There are certain contra decisions also, which are discussed hereunder:- a) Addl. CIT vs Southern Structural Ltd. 110 ITR 164 (mad.) wherein it was held that production of proto type will not amount to manufacturing. b) Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 252 ITR 883 (SC) held that tyre retreading is not manufacturing. c) In Appeejy Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 77 taxman 208 (Cal.) it was held that packing of tea is not manufacturing thus not ent…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…iv. Even in Punam Chandra Prem Raj vs CIT 207 ITR 895 (Raj.) High Court held that ginning of cotton is process, thus entitled to deduction. 2.6. There are certain contra decisions also, which are discussed hereunder:- a) Addl. CIT vs Southern Structural Ltd. 110 ITR 164 (mad.) wherein it was held that production of proto type will not amount to manufacturing. b) Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 252 ITR 883 (SC) held that tyre retreading is not manufacturing. 16 Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle ITA No.2369/Mum/2013 & c) In Appeejy Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 77 taxman 208 (Cal.) it was held tha…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2369/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…iv. Even in Punam Chandra Prem Raj vs CIT 207 ITR 895 (Raj.) High Court held that ginning of cotton is process, thus entitled to deduction. 2.6. There are certain contra decisions also, which are discussed hereunder:- a) Addl. CIT vs Southern Structural Ltd. 110 ITR 164 (mad.) wherein it was held that production of proto type will not amount to manufacturing. b) Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 252 ITR 883 (SC) held that tyre retreading is not manufacturing. 16 Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle ITA No.2369/Mum/2013 & c) In Appeejy Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 77 taxman 208 (Cal.) it was held tha…

ACE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS LIMITED vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/793/2009HC Karnataka02 Jun 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…the date of sale without any technical problem. 15 14. The learned Advocate appearing for the assessee relied upon the following judgments: (i) Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-II v. Southern Structurals Ltd. – (1977) 110 ITR 164 (ii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. – (1974) 93 ITR 548 (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Food Specialities Ltd. – (1958) 156 ITR 790 (iv) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited - (2010) 322 ITR 631 (v) Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-T…

Addl. CIT v. Southern Structural Ltd. (110 ITR 164) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax