CIT v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd.

246 ITR 156High Court2000#13878 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80-ICSection 80-IE

Issues it is cited on

section 80icsection 80ibsection 80igross total incomesection 80section 143prescribedcompanysection 14section 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

…se of CIT v. Vinbros& Co.: 177 Taxman 217 (Madras HC) [against which, the department's SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vinbros& Co.: [2012] 25 taxmann.com 367 (SC)] and CIT v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd: 246 ITR 156 (Bombay HC), Following its own order for the assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) similarly allowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IC on the ground that the process of Ujala Supreme amounts to manufacture/production of a distinct article or thing for the assessment years 2009- 10 to 2014-15.” 8 ITA 515 and 516/Mum/2025 Jyothy Labs Limited…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

…se of CIT v. Vinbros& Co.: 177 Taxman 217 (Madras HC) [against which, the department's SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vinbros& Co.: [2012] 25 taxmann.com 367 (SC)] and CIT v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd: 246 ITR 156 (Bombay HC), Following its own order for the assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) similarly allowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IC on the ground that the process of Ujala Supreme amounts to manufacture/production of a distinct article or thing for the assessment years 2009- 10 to 2014-15.” 8 ITA 515 and 516/Mum/2025 Jyothy Labs Limited…

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3876/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

…ct with a different name, character and use and is commercially a different product. In support of this the appellant has relied on the following decisions - CIT vs Vinbros & Co (2009) 177 Taxmann 217 - Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Company Limited 246 ITR 156 iv. It is not practically or economically feasible for a consumer to prepare Ujala Supreme fabric whitener and in any event it is irrelevant to the issue whether Ujala Supreme is commercially a new and distinct product ITA Nos. 3875 &3876/Mum/2018 and C.O Nos. 149 & 150/Mum/2019 8 DCIT-10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Limited v. in respect…

DCIT-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3875/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

…ct with a different name, character and use and is commercially a different product. In support of this the appellant has relied on the following decisions - CIT vs Vinbros & Co (2009) 177 Taxmann 217 - Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Company Limited 246 ITR 156 iv. It is not practically or economically feasible for a consumer to prepare Ujala Supreme fabric whitener and in any event it is irrelevant to the issue whether Ujala Supreme is commercially a new and distinct product ITA Nos. 3875 &3876/Mum/2018 and C.O Nos. 149 & 150/Mum/2019 8 DCIT-10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Limited v. in respect…

SUNGRO SEEDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6263/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…hing the Honorable Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and others V/s. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. and the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Limited reported in 246 ITR 156, which are directly on the issue.” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the substantive dispute is manifested in Ground of appeal no. 2, which relates to denial of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation on plant and machineries as per Sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.97,83,302/-.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GITWAKO FARMS (I) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/740/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 80Section 80I

…& Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001) 21 ITR 323 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries, (2009) 225 CTR (Del) 410 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jalna Seeds Processing & Refrigeration Co. Ltd., (2000) 246 ITR 156 (Bom.). 10. We may note that the decisions in the case of CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods (supra) and CIT v. Bharath Sea Foods of the Kerala High Court related to prawns and fish respectively are no longer holding field on the subject in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Relish Foods…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GITWAKO FARMS (I) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 740 / 2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 80Section 80I

…& Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001) 21 ITR 323 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries, (2009) 225 CTR (Del) 410 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jalna Seeds Processing & Refrigeration Co. Ltd., (2000) 246 ITR 156 (Bom.). 10. We may note that the decisions in the case of CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods (supra) and CIT v. Bharath Sea Foods of the Kerala High Court related to prawns and fish respectively are no longer holding field on the subject in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Relish Foods…

CIT v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd. (246 ITR 156) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax