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.

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…t with regard to the express language used in the provision. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing the rule of liberal interpretation of an Incentive provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. N.C.Budharaja and Another, 204 ITR 412 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision should not do violence to plain language. The object of an enactment should be gathered from a reasonable interpretation of the language used therein. 4.15 Considered in the light of the aforesaid principle of Jaw, the language used in Clause (a) of section 80IB(10) is clear and unambigu…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…t with regard to the express language used in the provision. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing the rule of liberal interpretation of an Incentive provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. N.C.Budharaja and Another, 204 ITR 412 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision should not do violence to plain language. The object of an enactment should be gathered from a reasonable interpretation of the language used therein. 4.15 Considered in the light of the aforesaid principle of Jaw, the language used in Clause (a) of section 80IB(10) is clear and unambigu…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…t with regard to the express language used in the provision. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing the rule of liberal interpretation of an Incentive provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. N.C.Budharaja and Another, 204 ITR 412 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision should not do violence to plain language. The object of an enactment should be gathered from a reasonable interpretation of the language used therein. 4.15 Considered in the light of the aforesaid principle of Jaw, the language used in Clause (a) of section 80IB(10) is clear and unambigu…

V.Anantha Kumar, Chamarajanagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-9(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…Ltd. (supra) proceeded to discuss various other case laws with regard to the claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: Sri V. Anantha Kumar, Chamarajnagar Page 5 of 8 a) CIT Vs. N.C. Budharaja & Copany (1993) 204 ITR 412. b) CIT Vs. Gwalior Ryan Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC). c) Tonira Pharma Ltd. 39 SOT 58. d) Kwal Pro Exports Vs. ACIT 110 ITD 59 By placing the reliance on the above said case laws, the Ld. CIT(A) expressed the view that in order to be eligible for exemption u/s 10B of the Act, the activity carried on by the assessee sho…

Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Telangana State Power Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Generation Corporation Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 /06/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 21/08/2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32A

…ecific for power generation company. IN support of his arguments he placed reliance on the judgment of the 16 I.T.A. No. 1424/Hyd/2019 Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Hyd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N C Budharaja and Co., [1993] 204 ITR 412 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors: (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 327 (SC). 6.1. In the rejoinder the AR of the assessee submitted that the case laws relied by the Ld CIT Dr. is not applicable in the present facts of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that the electricity is “goods” then there is…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 80I

…ferent. In our opinion, in view of this clause and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co. (supra), it cannot be held that the assessee is engaged in these units in manufacturing. 5.13 Further, in CIT Vs N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC), Hon‟ble Supreme Court further observed that the word “production” is much wider than the word “manufacture”. It was said (page 423): “The word “production” has a wide connotation than the word “manufacture”. While every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture… The word „production‟ or…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…ning 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 412 that the word 'production' is much wider than the word 'manufacture'. It was said (page 423): 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…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…ning 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 412 that the word 'production' is much wider than the word 'manufacture'. It was said (page 423): 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…

M/S. Bharti Cellular Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…ed by the jurisdictional High Court, was that the civil construction work carried out by the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Section 80HH of the Act, which view was squarely reversed in the case of CIT vs N.C. Budharaja and Co. reported in (1993) 204 ITR 412. The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the judgment of the Supreme Court does not authorise the Department to reopen the assessment, which stood closed on the basis of the law, as it stood at the relevant time." (emphasis supplied by us). 5.5 We also draw support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Tant…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Syngene

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/184/2016HC Karnataka02 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 260A

…t in respect of first two contingencies, undoubtedly, there is a production or manufacture in the nature of a compound. However, in respect of third contingency by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. M.C.BUDHI RAJA AND CO.', 204 ITR 412, it has held that even in respect of third contingency, it can be held that the assessee is engaged in the activity of production. Thus, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has been upheld. It is pertinent to mention that in the memo of appeal filed before the tribunal, the 19 revenue has not assailed the finding…

M/S Maxim India Intergrated Circuit Design Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1573/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gollapinni Mallikarjuna, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 40

…IT(TP)A No.1573/Bang/2017 M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1573/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd. Deputy 4th Floor Tower B, Commercio @ Mantri, Commissioner of Survey No.51/2, 51/3, 51/4, Income-tax Devarabesanahalli Vs. Circle-4(1)(2) Kariyammana Agrahara VarthurHobli Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 103 PAN NO :AACCM9437E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khin…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…O Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC)  Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.,  AIR 1963 SC 791 Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE: [1990] 183 ITR 577 (SC)  Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India: 179 ITR 317, 341 (SC)  N.C. Budhiraja: 204 ITR 412 (SC)  Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. V. CIT: 251 ITR 323 (SC)  CST vs. Jagannnath Cotton Company: 99 STC 83, 86 (SC)  CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.: 279 ITR 331 (SC)  India Cine Agency v. CIT: 308 ITR 98 (SC)  ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79 (SC)  Ship Scrap Traders v. CIT: 251 ITR 806 (Bom)  Orient Longman Ltd V. ITO: 130 ITR 477 (Del…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…O Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC)  Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.,  AIR 1963 SC 791 Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE: [1990] 183 ITR 577 (SC)  Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India: 179 ITR 317, 341 (SC)  N.C. Budhiraja: 204 ITR 412 (SC)  Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. V. CIT: 251 ITR 323 (SC)  CST vs. Jagannnath Cotton Company: 99 STC 83, 86 (SC)  CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.: 279 ITR 331 (SC)  India Cine Agency v. CIT: 308 ITR 98 (SC)  ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79 (SC)  Ship Scrap Traders v. CIT: 251 ITR 806 (Bom)  Orient Longman Ltd V. ITO: 130 ITR 477 (Del…

Vedanta Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 12/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153

…as been interpreted to be one having much wider connotation in as much as every ‘manufacture’ can be characterised as ‘production’ while every ‘production’ might not amount to ‘manufacture’ as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of NC Budharaja & Co. 204 ITR 412. 55. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 [earlier name of the assessee] has held that extraction and processing of iron ore amounts to production. Relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court to read as under: “2. The following question raised at the instance of the revenue in an appeal before the Bomb…