CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd.

239 ITR 375High Court1999#17328 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 33BSection 80IB(2)(iv)Section 80IBSection 80IB(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd.

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…sessee was dismissed as the assessee failed tosatisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd.'s, case (supra). The learned counsel for the Revenue reliedupon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [1999]239 ITR 375 (Madras). The question was whether the business of tyre retreading done by the assesseeamounts to production of a new article and whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Sections 80J and80HH of the Act. 24. This Court held that the common thread which runs in all the decisions is that only when a new distinctcommodity commercially accep…

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…sessee was dismissed as the assessee failed tosatisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd.'s, case (supra). The learned counsel for the Revenue reliedupon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [1999]239 ITR 375 (Madras). The question was whether the business of tyre retreading done by the assesseeamounts to production of a new article and whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Sections 80J and80HH of the Act. 24. This Court held that the common thread which runs in all the decisions is that only when a new distinctcommodity commercially accep…

Dxn Herbal Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry vs. ACIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.K.Ravi,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R
Section 11BSection 431Section 43BSection 801B

…d to satisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. :- 5 -: Ltd., case. The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-f tax Vs. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd., reported in [(1999) 239 ITR 375 (Madras]. The question was whether the business of tyre retreading done by the assessec amounts to production of a new article and whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Sections 80J and 8OHH of the Act. 24. This Court held that the common thread which runs in all the decisions is that only when a new distinct commodity commercially ac…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…nveyor belt can be regarded as the result of a process of manufacture, and as hav- ing brought into existence a new article, the counsel for the reve- nue referred us to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 375 , wherein it was held in the context of a claim for investment allowance for a unit which retrea- ded tyres, that a retreaded tyre was not a new article, and that the pro- cess of retreading was not manufacture. It was emphasized by the Court that for claiming relief under section 80J a new article should emerge from the manufacture. The counsel…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…nveyor belt can be regarded as the result of a process of manufacture, and as hav- ing brought into existence a new article, the counsel for the reve- nue referred us to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 375 , wherein it was held in the context of a claim for investment allowance for a unit which retrea- ded tyres, that a retreaded tyre was not a new article, and that the pro- cess of retreading was not manufacture. It was emphasized by the Court that for claiming relief under section 80J a new article should emerge from the manufacture. The counsel…

CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd. (239 ITR 375) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax