CIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (I.) Ltd.

213 ITR 517High Court1995#17211 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (I.) Ltd.

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghavi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2455/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) V. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp Room No. 207, {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.237/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) [Arising Out Of Ita No.2455/Mum/2017] M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp V. A.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Tardeo Bharat Diamond Bourse, Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. AjgaonkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

…ances 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 (Supreme Court) & Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of London star Diamond Co (L) 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.” 7. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the claim of the assess…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Acit 19(2) Vs. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons R.No.L-207, 1301, Prasad Chambers Matru Mandir Mamam Parmanand Marg Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk8390F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ts 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 the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the claim of the assesse…

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

…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 raised three Grounds of appeal, but two issues have been raised, which we shall deal in seriatim. 4.…

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)

…ts 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 the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the claim of the assesse…

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

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s. Manglam Arts, Govind Nagar, Amber Palace Road, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. K.D. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 31/07/2017 By way of this appeal, the appellant has…