CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd.

126 ITR 673High Court1980#6241 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. authority for?

A new undertaking is not a reconstruction of an old business, even if it manufactures some items also manufactured by the old unit, provided it is a separate and identifiable undertaking established with new plant and machinery.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gedore Tools India (Pvt.) Ltd · reconstruction of business · new undertaking · separate and identifiable · new plant and machinery · integral part of old unit · business expansion

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd.

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

…f the undertaking is new and identitiable undertaking, separate and distinct, from the existing business then it will not be reconstruction of business already in existence. Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in 126 ITR 673 has held that, the fact that, the new Unit manufactured some of the items which were manufactured by the old unit will not make it an integral part of old unit, Even if new undertaking manufactures a product which is feeded to the old business even then it will not amount reconstruction of the old business. Establishment of the new unit with new…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

…f the undertaking is new and identitiable undertaking, separate and distinct, from the existing business then it will not be reconstruction of business already in existence. Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in 126 ITR 673 has held that, the fact that, the new Unit manufactured some of the items which were manufactured by the old unit will not make it an integral part of old unit, Even if new undertaking manufactures a product which is feeded to the old business even then it will not amount reconstruction of the old business. Establishment of the new unit with new…

PAUSHAK LIMITED,,BARODA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 436/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 80Section 80I

…* CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 406 (Bom. HC) * Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) * Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 94 (Guj. HC) * CIT vs. Gedore Tools India (P.) Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del. HC) * Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 338 ITR 643 (Mad. HC) * CIT vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd.(1986) 162 ITR 760 (Gujarat High Court) * CIT vs. Cethar Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 183 (Mad. HC) * CIT vs. Alembic Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 1249 of 2014 order dated 20.07.2016 Gujarat High Court) Thus, the ld. A.R. submi…

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under subsection (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It is…

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under subsection (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It is…

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under subsection (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It is…

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under subsection (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It is…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 855/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under sub- section (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It…

NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2140/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under sub- section (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2077/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under sub- section (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2029/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under sub- section (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1983/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…e manufactured by the first, did not make it an integral part of the first unit as it could survive independently of the first unit. Reference may be made to (the decision in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, 108 ITR 367(SC), CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd, 126 ITR 673, CIT v. Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, 127 ITR 495(Mad.), CIT v. Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd, 128 ITR 476(Kar). In the case of the appellant, the main section grants relief in respect of profits and gains of an undertaking. Explanation 2 under sub- section (3) of sec 80-IA cannot govern or restrict the relief available under the main section. It…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3067/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3066/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3065/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3064/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3063/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…y in the old business, they are not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. About splitting of business and consequently disallowance of deduction, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 673 (Del), held that applying the principles of the Supreme Court in the Textile Machinery case, to the present case, it is clear that the new unit has not been formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The second unit has not derived anything from the old unit either by way of equipment or by way of factory buildings. No…

CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. (126 ITR 673) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax