CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.

204 ITR 412Supreme Court of India1993#599 most cited

What is CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. authority for?

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. · 204 ITR 412 · production vs manufacture · definition of production · wider connotation of production · Section 80I · Section 80J · Section 80IB · Section 10B · tax incentives · deductions for industrial undertakings

Also reported as

70 Taxmann 312

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 144Section 10BSection 145Section 148Section 80HHCSection 2(29BA)Section 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 32asection 80jsection 32(1)(iia)additional depreciationsection 32(1)section 32section 80isection 80notice under section 148section 10previous year

Judgments citing CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. M .M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 755/MUM/2012[B]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

DCIT., Cir.-4(2), Mumbai vs. M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3409/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

Income Tax Officer 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6523/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

ITO - 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4988/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

ITO - 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4987/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

I.T.O-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S M.M.Poonjiaji Spices Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2943/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

ITO - 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6537/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…assessee is a Vegetable Processing Industry and as per the XIV Schedule itself, it is manufacturing or producing the bottled product of gherkin pickles. 9. A reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/ 70 Taxman 312 clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term "production" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" to take in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, immediate products and residual products which emerge in th…

M/S. Jsw Steel Processing Centres Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(6), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. JSW Steel Processing Centres Ltd., Vs. DCIT, No.121, 3rd Floor The Estates, Circle – 4(1)(1), Dickenson Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 042. PAN : AABCJ 7646 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. Kotresh, CA Revenue by : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal was disposed off by the Tribunal vid…

Sanjay Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154

…by order dated 19-10-1992, the AO withdrew the benefit of investment allowance by taking recourse to the provisions of rectification. The revenue submitted that in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) the issue in relation to claiming of investment allowance in the activity of drilling stood decided in favour 5 of revenue. It was contended that once the issue is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against an assessee, the action on the part of AO in invoking section 154 of the Act rectifying the mistake in wrongly granting the benefit…

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…otherwise than what has been stated by the legislation. I find that the Apex Court has clearly stated such version of defining the provision of law in the following case laws : (1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs N.C. Budhiraj& Co. reported in 204 ITR 412 held that the principle of adopting liberal interpretation which advances the purpose and object of beneficial provision cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain and simple language used in the enactment. Further, in the case of Seshayee Paper & Boards Ltd. vs. CTT reported in 233 ITR 167, the Hon’ble Madras High court has c…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…otherwise than what has been stated by the legislation. I find that the Apex Court has clearly stated such version of defining the provision of law in the following case laws : (1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs N.C. Budhiraj& Co. reported in 204 ITR 412 held that the principle of adopting liberal interpretation which advances the purpose and object of beneficial provision cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain and simple language used in the enactment. Further, in the case of Seshayee Paper & Boards Ltd. vs. CTT reported in 233 ITR 167, the Hon’ble Madras High court has c…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…otherwise than what has been stated by the legislation. I find that the Apex Court has clearly stated such version of defining the provision of law in the following case laws : (1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs N.C. Budhiraj& Co. reported in 204 ITR 412 held that the principle of adopting liberal interpretation which advances the purpose and object of beneficial provision cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain and simple language used in the enactment. Further, in the case of Seshayee Paper & Boards Ltd. vs. CTT reported in 233 ITR 167, the Hon’ble Madras High court has c…

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

…State of Kerala &Ors (2013) 131 STC 538 Ker ITA Nos. 3875 &3876/Mum/2018 and C.O Nos. 149 & 150/Mum/2019 7 DCIT-10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Limited iii. Tungabhadra Industresi ltd. Vs. CTO (1960) 11 STC 827 (SC) iv. CIT vs NC Buddhiraja & Co (1993) 204 ITR 412(SC) v. DD Shah & Bros (2015) 148 Taxmann 4 (Raj) vi. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT (10 SSC 39) (SC) 9. On the other hand, the AR of the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant company is engaged in the manufacturing activity and production of Ujala Supreme and claimed of 801C(2) deduction correctly for the following reason:- i. T…

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

…State of Kerala &Ors (2013) 131 STC 538 Ker ITA Nos. 3875 &3876/Mum/2018 and C.O Nos. 149 & 150/Mum/2019 7 DCIT-10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Limited iii. Tungabhadra Industresi ltd. Vs. CTO (1960) 11 STC 827 (SC) iv. CIT vs NC Buddhiraja & Co (1993) 204 ITR 412(SC) v. DD Shah & Bros (2015) 148 Taxmann 4 (Raj) vi. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT (10 SSC 39) (SC) 9. On the other hand, the AR of the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant company is engaged in the manufacturing activity and production of Ujala Supreme and claimed of 801C(2) deduction correctly for the following reason:- i. T…

M/S Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 107/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata 37/2, Chinar Park New Town Hatiara Rajarhat Main Road Kolkata - 7000157 Pan : Aaecs0373H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 26 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Reopening U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ided the writ petitions and learned counsel for the respondents states that the reasons in those two cases are identical to the reasons disclosed in the present case, viz., the explanation of law by the apex court in the case of N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412. But on a perusal of the said judgments, it appears that in the case of Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. , no finding has been arrived at that the second requirement as discussed hereinabove is in the alternative. In the case of Sim-plex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. , the same learned judge came to a finding that both the conditions contained in Secti…

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

…of the appellant cannot be termed as manufacture or production as required by the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying heavily upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NC Budhraja reported in [1980] 204 ITR 412. In the appellate proceedings, CIT (A) confirmed the findings of the AO and held that though the assessee satisfies the remaining conditions of the provisions of the Act, it doesn’t qualify as manufacturing or producing any article or thing since it is constructing roads. Ld. CIT (A) has also Page 3 of 25 Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Assessment year 20…

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

…ining activity for the purpose of production of mineral ores would come within the ambit of the word "production" since ore is "a thing", which is the result of human activity or effort. It has also been held by this Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja& Co. [1993] 204 ITR 4122 (SC) that the word "production" is much wider than the word "manufacture". It was said : " The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The word 'production' or 'produce' when used in juxtaposition with the w…

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT., (Intnl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/AHD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

…ining activity for the purpose of production of mineral ores would come within the ambit of the word "production" since ore is "a thing", which is the result of human activity or effort. It has also been held by this Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja& Co. [1993] 204 ITR 4122 (SC) that the word "production" is much wider than the word "manufacture". It was said : " The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The word 'production' or 'produce' when used in juxtaposition with the w…

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

…Act Ld. AO observed that additional depreciation and investments allowance can be claimed only if the assessee is a manufacturer of any article or thing. Ld. AO relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Butharaja & CO. 1993 204 ITR 412 came to conclusion that construction of road is not a activity of manufacturing and since the assessee is in the business of construction of road and is not a manufacturer it cannot claim the deductions available only to manufacturers and therefore disallowed the additional depreciation uls 32(1)(ia) of the Act Rs. 22,57,23,589/and also disallowe…

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

…Act Ld. AO observed that additional depreciation and investments allowance can be claimed only if the assessee is a manufacturer of any article or thing. Ld. AO relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Butharaja & CO. 1993 204 ITR 412 came to conclusion that construction of road is not a activity of manufacturing and since the assessee is in the business of construction of road and is not a manufacturer it cannot claim the deductions available only to manufacturers and therefore disallowed the additional depreciation uls 32(1)(ia) of the Act Rs. 22,57,23,589/and also disallowe…