CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd.

196 ITR 813High Court1992#8839 most cited

What is CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not engaged in manufacturing if the major part of the process, such as weaving, is outsourced, even if minor processes like crimping and twisting are done in-house.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. · 196 ITR 813 · section 80IB · manufacturing · job work · outsourcing · weaving · crimping · twisting · business income

Issues it is cited on

initial assessment yearsection 80igross total incomesection 80transfersection 143personcompanysection 14indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd.

M/S Asha Technologies, Kala Amb vs. ITO, Sirmour

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…on record, material available on record and other relevant contentions. It is not based on irrelevant considerations. There are cogent reasons in support of the same. The judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Penwalt India Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 813 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case Hon’ble High Court had observed that “ Therefore we have to proceed on the basis of decisions cited that an assessee would be said to be engaged in manufacturing activity if he is doing a part of the manufacturing activity by himself and for the rest of it, engages the services of s…

M/S Asha Technologies, Sirmour vs. Addl. CIT, Solan

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…on record, material available on record and other relevant contentions. It is not based on irrelevant considerations. There are cogent reasons in support of the same. The judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Penwalt India Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 813 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case Hon’ble High Court had observed that “ Therefore we have to proceed on the basis of decisions cited that an assessee would be said to be engaged in manufacturing activity if he is doing a part of the manufacturing activity by himself and for the rest of it, engages the services of s…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Ace Plastics, Mumbai

ITA 947/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…eals) partly sustained the disallowance, holding that the deduction should be confined only to the cloth manufactured in the assessee's factory.... ".... We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. In 196 ITR 813 (supra) the fact-situation was that the assessee was getting 11 M/s. ACE Plastics machinery manufactured by somebody else under its direct supervision and control whereas all other activities were undertaken by assessee which included (1) canvassing of orders, (ii) preparing of designs and drawings on the basis of orders (Hi) placing orders for…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/192/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…llation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Contine…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/121/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…llation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Contine…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals, Vijayawada

ITTA/25/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…llation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Contine…

The Commissioner of Inocme Tax vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/259/2015HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…llation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Contine…

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

…rein facts have been mentioned that the assessee got the entire manufacturing done at the Vaibhav Healthcare Private Limited unit. The CIT-DR would rely on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Penwalt India Limited reported in (1992) 196 ITR 813(Bombay) to contend that in this case some part manufacturing was done by tax-payer and rest of the manufacturing was got done on contract basis in other unit and under these circumstances the Court held that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 80I of the 1961 Act. It was submitted that in the case before us , no manufacturing was don…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…tories Pvt. vs. CIT: 119 ITR 145 - (Cal.) CIT v. Neo Phrama P. Ltd.: 137 ITR 879 (Bom.) - - CIT v. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. : 199 ITR 92 (Bom.) India TyreAnd Rubber Co. (India) Pvt. Limited. - vs. CIT: 210 ITR 409 (Bom.) CIT v. Penwalt India Ltd.: 196 ITR 813 (Bom.) - - Oriental Longman Ltd. vs. CIT: 130 ITR 477 (Del.) - CIT v. Acrow India Ltd.: 188 ITR 485 (Bom.) CIT vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. : 25 - taxmann.com 561 (Mad.) - MkU (Armours) Ltd. v. CIT: 279 CTR 504 (All.) - IT v AAR ESS Exim (P) Ltd: 372 ITR 111 (Del.) Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Pvt - Ltd: 282 ITR 568 (Guj.) - Liberty Gr…

Harnam Syntex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…be treated as activity of manufacturing or not should not be referred. She also relied upon two other decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 309 and in the case of CIT v. Penwalt India Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 813. 18. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that most of the processing were done through job work, because weaving is a major part which has been outsourced. Crimping and twisting is only a minor part. Therefore, it has been rightly held that, assessee is not engaged in manufacturing and sales and therefore the deduction u/s 80IB should not be allo…

Harnam Syntex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…be treated as activity of manufacturing or not should not be referred. She also relied upon two other decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 309 and in the case of CIT v. Penwalt India Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 813. 18. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that most of the processing were done through job work, because weaving is a major part which has been outsourced. Crimping and twisting is only a minor part. Therefore, it has been rightly held that, assessee is not engaged in manufacturing and sales and therefore the deduction u/s 80IB should not be allo…

DCIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Harnam Syntex P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4151/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…be treated as activity of manufacturing or not should not be referred. She also relied upon two other decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 309 and in the case of CIT v. Penwalt India Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 813. 18. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that most of the processing were done through job work, because weaving is a major part which has been outsourced. Crimping and twisting is only a minor part. Therefore, it has been rightly held that, assessee is not engaged in manufacturing and sales and therefore the deduction u/s 80IB should not be allo…