CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd.

305 ITR 309Reported decision2008#20526 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

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

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

…of law, whether activities of twisting and crimping of yarn can 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 a…

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

…of law, whether activities of twisting and crimping of yarn can 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 a…

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

…of law, whether activities of twisting and crimping of yarn can 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 a…

GENIUS PRINTERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5024/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am)

Section 68

…d in different context. It was further submitted that subsequently, in another judgment the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has properly considered the facts and thereafter decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT vs Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. 305 ITR 309, wherein after considering the judgment of Jaypee Dyeing House (supra), it was held that process of designing, printing magazines waterproofing etc conducted in cotton fabrics, wooden fabrics and man-made fabrics, would amount to manufacture. Finally, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Delhi Pres…

CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. (305 ITR 309) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax