CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd.

60 ITR 134High Court1986#8103 most cited

What is CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. authority for?

Construction activity is not considered manufacturing or production for the purpose of claiming deductions under sections 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act. This means companies purely engaged in construction are generally ineligible for these deductions.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. · 60 ITR 134 · construction activity · manufacturing activity · deduction u/s 80HH · deduction u/s 80I · Delhi High Court · income tax act

Judgments citing CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd.

Dilip Buildcon Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 163/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ACIT Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) PAN: AACCD 6124 B Assessee by Shri Hitesh Chimnani and Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 23.08…

Thed CIT, Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Dilip Buildcon Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 290/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Shri Dilip Buildcon Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT Central -1, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 197/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Dilip Buildcon Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 882/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Dilip Buildcon Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 881/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Dilip Buildcon Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 820/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Dilip Buildcon Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 819/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Dilip Buildcon Limited, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 816/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Dilip Buildcon Limited, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 782/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…on activity itself not being an activity of manufacture or production, as has been categorically held by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel would also rely on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. [1986] 60 ITR 134 (Delhi) and Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 722 (Delhi). 8. At the outset, we are called upon to answer the question of law arising & from the majority decision; whether the making of RMC can be termed to be manufacture and it qualifies as a thing or article. Both the Tribunal Members, who found that the product of RMC doe…

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed with

ITA 525/DEL/1995[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 1991-92

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 80H

…truction activity and not in the manufacturing activity and this deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(DR) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134(Del) which has been subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, contended that construction is not a manufacturing activity and when the assessee is purely engaged in the construction activity then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the observation of Hon’ble High Court in para 32 ar…

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed with

ITA 2192/DEL/1991[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 1987-88

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 80H

…truction activity and not in the manufacturing activity and this deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(DR) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134(Del) which has been subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, contended that construction is not a manufacturing activity and when the assessee is purely engaged in the construction activity then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the observation of Hon’ble High Court in para 32 ar…

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. IAC (A), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed with

ITA 3186/DEL/1990[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 1986-87

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 80H

…truction activity and not in the manufacturing activity and this deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(DR) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134(Del) which has been subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, contended that construction is not a manufacturing activity and when the assessee is purely engaged in the construction activity then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the observation of Hon’ble High Court in para 32 ar…

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. IAC (A), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed with

ITA 544/DEL/1989[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 1985-86

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 80H

…truction activity and not in the manufacturing activity and this deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(DR) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134(Del) which has been subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, contended that construction is not a manufacturing activity and when the assessee is purely engaged in the construction activity then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the observation of Hon’ble High Court in para 32 ar…

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. IAC (A), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed with

ITA 2144/DEL/1989[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 1984-85

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 80H

…truction activity and not in the manufacturing activity and this deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(DR) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134(Del) which has been subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, contended that construction is not a manufacturing activity and when the assessee is purely engaged in the construction activity then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the observation of Hon’ble High Court in para 32 ar…

CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. (60 ITR 134) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax