CIT v. Gem India Manufacturing Co.

249 ITR 307Supreme Court of India2001#4650 most cited

What is CIT v. Gem India Manufacturing Co. authority for?

Cutting and polishing of uncut raw diamonds does not constitute manufacturing or production of a new article or thing, as the raw diamonds remain diamonds after the process.

25

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. Gem India Manufacturing Co. · 249 ITR 307 · manufacturing · production · diamond cutting · diamond polishing · raw diamonds · new article

Also reported as

117 Taxmann 368

Judgments citing CIT v. Gem India Manufacturing Co.

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Bhawani Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Traishawala (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…d and is entitle for additional depreciation or not. The assessee approached the Tribunal and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2013 relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gems India Manufacturing Co. reported vide 249 ITR 307. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of the order in the on the basis of decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Heaven Diamonds (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT in Civil Appeal No.9936 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011. The assessee contended in the application that that the assessee was not able to demonstrate the process undertak…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. D.A. Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…erred in allowing the additional depreciation claimed of Rs.18,26,347/-. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001) 249 ITR 307(SC) and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of London Star Diamond Co. (10 Ltd. 213 ITR 517 (Bom) had held that the diamond cutting and polishing amounts to processing of goods and not manufacturing of goods and decision relied upon in the case or M/s. Sheetal Manufacturing has not been accepted on merits.” 3. Although the Revenue has raise…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K P Sanghvi & Sons, Income Tax -16(3), Matru 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Operahouse,Mumbai-4 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaafk8390F .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Sri R P Meena Respondent By .. Sri K Shivram Date Of Hearing .. 29-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 29 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-27/Ac-16(3)/135/13-14 Dated 22.4.2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- Circle 16(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 28.3.2013 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional depreciation of RS.29,38,884/- 4. Whether on facts and circumstances .of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co.(2001) 249 ITR 307 (SC) & Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of London Star Diamond Co(I)Ltd.213 ITR 517 (Bom) had held that the diamond cutting & polishing amounts to processing of goods and not manufacturing of goods and decision relied upon in the case of M/s Sheetal Manufactures has not been accepted on merits.‖ 10. We have heard the rival contentions of…

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6436/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6436 & 6437/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems, Dy. Cit-16(3), बनाम/ 101, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai M. P. Marg, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb 2302 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Sandeep Goel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2006-07 & 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) & 143 R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common Grievance In Both The Years Pertain To Decline Of Claim Of Additional Depreciation. In The A.Y. 2006-07, Scrutiny Assessment Was Framed U/S.143(3), Wherein After Calling Details Of Plant & Machinery So Installed During The Year, The Assessing Officer Has Allowed The Assessee’S Claim Of Additional Deprecation. Thereafter The (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems Vs. Dy. Cit Assessment Was Reopended On The Plea That As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 Itr 307 (Sc), Cutting & Polishing Of Diamonds Did Not Amount To Manufacture/Production. Accordingly, Additional Deprecation Was Disallowed & The Order Of Ao Was Confirmed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel
Section 143(3)Section 80

…has allowed the assessee’s claim of additional deprecation. Thereafter the (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s. Bhavani Gems vs. Dy. CIT assessment was reopended on the plea that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 ITR 307 (SC), cutting and polishing of diamonds did not amount to manufacture/production. Accordingly, additional deprecation was disallowed and the order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. It was argued by the ld. AR that the diamond cutting and polishing involve a very lengthy process and requires special skills to convert rough diamond into polish…

Commissioner of Income tAx vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy

The appeals stand dismissed

ITTA/6/2009HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10BSection 36(1)Section 80H

…s to be construed very strictly and since it is an exemption, it should be equated with the provisions of Section 80I which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co.- (2001) 249 ITR 307, wherein it has been held as under: 4. The Tribunal took the view that it did because in "common parlance and commercial sense raw diamonds are not the same thing as polished and cut diamonds. The two are different entities in the commercial world. Though the chemical composition remains the same the physical characteristics of…