CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.

314 ITR 32High Court#8393 most cited

What is CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. authority for?

Manufacturing or production includes activities such as assembling, and the process of making granite tiles constitutes manufacturing.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Fateh Granite P Ltd. · 314 ITR 32 · manufacturing · production · assembling · granite tiles · Section 80-IB

Judgments citing CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.

Rakesh Kumar, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Patna

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…ven assembling is also manufacturing, and the same are as under: i) Indian Cine Agencies 308 IYT 98 (SC), ii) Vijay Ship Breaking 314 ITR 309 SC, iii) Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma 308 ITR 222 (PH), iv) Perfect liners 142 ITR 654 (Madras), v) Fateh Granite P Ltd. 314 ITR 32 (Bom), vi)Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) and vii)Jeevan Diesel & Electricals Ltd Calcutta ITAT 7. He also submitted that it has also been consistently held that if a deduction has been granted for the initial year then unless there is a change in activity, or any specific condition have not been fulfilled then such deduction…

Rakesh Kumar, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Patna

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 85/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…ven assembling is also manufacturing, and the same are as under: i) Indian Cine Agencies 308 IYT 98 (SC), ii) Vijay Ship Breaking 314 ITR 309 SC, iii) Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma 308 ITR 222 (PH), iv) Perfect liners 142 ITR 654 (Madras), v) Fateh Granite P Ltd. 314 ITR 32 (Bom), vi)Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) and vii)Jeevan Diesel & Electricals Ltd Calcutta ITAT 7. He also submitted that it has also been consistently held that if a deduction has been granted for the initial year then unless there is a change in activity, or any specific condition have not been fulfilled then such deduction…

K.Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…Paul Brothers [216 ITR 548(Bom)] c. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [123 ITR 669 (Guj)] d. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. [254 CTR 593 (Bom)] e. lAC v. Hoechst India Ltd. [32 ITO 689 (Mum)] f. CIT v. Fateh Granite (P) Ltd. [314 ITR 32 (Bom)] g. CIT v. AR.J. Security Printers [264 ITR 276 (Del)] :- 15 -: K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Contention II: Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the compliance to the conditions of approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry 21. At the outset, we would like to dra…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…1994-95. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj)  CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)  CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.)CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.)  CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309  Direct Information Private Ltd. v. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)  CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 (Del)  CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 251 CTR 290 (Del) 12. In view of the aforementioned…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…1994-95. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj)  CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)  CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.)CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.)  CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309  Direct Information Private Ltd. v. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)  CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 (Del)  CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 251 CTR 290 (Del) 12. In view of the aforementioned…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ted 03.07.2019. 25. By placing reliance on the decisions in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.), CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.), CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309, Direct Information Private Ltd. vs. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 and the following decisions of the Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435, CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14, and CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 25…

M/S L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ted 03.07.2019. 25. By placing reliance on the decisions in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.), CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.), CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309, Direct Information Private Ltd. vs. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 and the following decisions of the Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435, CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14, and CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 25…

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…s. The ld AR argued that once the deduction is allowed in the initial assessment year, the same can not be withdrawn in the subsequent years by placing reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT Vs Paul Bros 216 ITR 548 (Bom) b) CIT Vs Fateh Granite (P) Ltd 314 ITR 32 (Bom) c) CIT Vs A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del) d) Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 123 ITR 669 (Guj) e) CIT Vs Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt Ltd 254 CR 593 (Bom) f) CIT Vs Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. 251 CTR 290 (Del) g) IAC Vs Hoechst India Ltd 32 ITD 689(Mum) h) M.M.Patel & Sons Vs ITO 1ITD 82 (Na…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…ars, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of deduction at the prescribed rate under section80J on the capital employed in the form of residential accommodation given to the shopkeepers in the township of the appellant.” - CIT v. Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.) Gujarat Guradian Limited V DCIT DCIT V Gujarat Guradian Limited A Y 2010-11 ITA No 1106 & 973/Del/2015 “8. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel had drawn our attention to the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Saurastra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd v. CIT (1979) 11 CTR (Guj) 139: [1980] 132 ITR 669 to contend th…

ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vaman Realtors P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3026/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-8(3)(4) M/S Vaman Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, (Now Known As Atul Resorts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd. 400020. Mumbai) 501-503, Trade Avenue, 5Th Floor, Suren Road, Off Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccv9048G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…in the initial assessment year, then the same cannot be withdrawn in the subsequent assessment year. Reliance is placed by him inter alia on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom), CIT v. Fateh Granite (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 32 (Bom) and CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. 254 CTR 593 (Bom). The Ld. counsel thus supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of Smt. Manju Gupta (supra), relied on by the Ld. counsel the assessee was to start a housing project, for which…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…s, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of deduction at the prescribed rate under section80J on the capital employed in the form of residential accommodation given to the shopkeepers in the township of the appellant.‖ (iv) CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.) ―8. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel had drawn our attention to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurastra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd v. CIT (1979) 11 CTR (Guj) 139: [1980] 132 ITR 669 to contend that once the revenue had allowed the relief for the previous assessment year, it was not open to distur…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…Act. The original block, therefore, does not remain the original block and the final product is distinctly different. The appellant has relied on the ratios in N.C. Budhiraja case 204 ITR 412 (SC), Grace Exports v. ITO 254 CTR 449, CIT v. Fateh Granite P Ltd 314 ITR 32, CIT v. Salgromkar & Bros P Ltd 47 taxmann.com 21, ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P Ltd 320 ITR 79 (SC), CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 (SC), Vijay Shipping Corporation v. CIT 314 ITR 309 (SC), Gem Granites v. CIT 141 Taxman 528 etc. A reference to the decisions relied upon by the appellant amply makes it clear that the ratios are in favour of…

Commissiioner of Income Tax vs. Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries

ITA/519/2009HC Delhi11 Aug 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Was As To Whether The Process Activity Undertaken By The Assessee Would Fall Within The 2009:Dhc:3184-Db

…opinion, therefore, the expression “production” will have the same meaning as in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) and consequently, the question framed is devoid of merits.” 5. We may also note that Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fateh Granite (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 32, was concerned with the identical issue, namely, manufacture of granite tiles and held the same to be a manufacturing process as is clear from the following discussion contained thereunder: “The language used in Section 10B is “manufacture or production”. This language is similar to the language used in Section 80-IB. The Supreme Court in C…

CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj), CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (314 ITR 32) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax