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, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2152/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…oduction 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 vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. & Anr. (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 420 : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) that the word (AYs-2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) "production" is much wider than the word "manufacture". Calcutta High Court has time and again reiterated its view that the mining activity amounts to production and additional depreciation and investment allowance could not be denied on the machinery used for production in the…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2150/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…oduction 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 vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. & Anr. (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 420 : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) that the word (AYs-2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) "production" is much wider than the word "manufacture". Calcutta High Court has time and again reiterated its view that the mining activity amounts to production and additional depreciation and investment allowance could not be denied on the machinery used for production in the…

Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order on this point after relying mainly on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. 3 ITA No.1723/PUN/2014, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited (1999) 204 ITR 412 (SC) in which it has been held that the construction of dam etc., does not constitute ‘manufacture or production of an article’ for the purposes of section 80HH(2)(i) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of additional depreciation. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The only controversy…

Ayoki Fabricon Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order on this point after relying mainly on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. 3 ITA No.1723/PUN/2014, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited (1999) 204 ITR 412 (SC) in which it has been held that the construction of dam etc., does not constitute ‘manufacture or production of an article’ for the purposes of section 80HH(2)(i) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of additional depreciation. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The only controversy…

Ayoki Fabricon Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order on this point after relying mainly on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. 3 ITA No.1723/PUN/2014, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited (1999) 204 ITR 412 (SC) in which it has been held that the construction of dam etc., does not constitute ‘manufacture or production of an article’ for the purposes of section 80HH(2)(i) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of additional depreciation. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The only controversy…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e Rule – the section should be so construed so as to make it effective and not still born. The word ‗belong‘ as used in the section means - and can only mean - ‗relates to‘ or ‗pertains to‘ and as held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Buddhiraia, 204 ITR 412 SC - you do not interpret a statute with a dictionary in one hand and the section in another - you have to see the ‗context‘ in which it is used and the ‗purpose and intention‘ it seeks to achieve etc. - hence the word ‗belong‘ cannot be interpreted strictly by a Dictionary meaning - but the context in which it is used and the purpose for which i…

ITO 33 (3) (4), Mumbai vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Ahdpk9148D

Section 80I

…uring. c) In Appeejy Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 77 taxman 208 (Cal.) it was held that packing of tea is not manufacturing thus not entitle to relief. d) Foundation work was not held to be characterized as production or manufacture in CIT vs N.C. Buddha Raja and Company 204 ITR 412 (SC) e) In CIT vs Hindustan metal refining works Pvt. Ltd. 128 ITR 472 (Cal.) it was held that galvanization is not 39 Sudarshan R. Kharbanda covered within the meaning of manufacturing and thus not entitled to the deduction. f) Rearing of Chicks was not held to be industrial undertaking and thus not entitled to deduction in CIT vs Venkateshawara…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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…

M/S Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. The DCIT, Ratlam

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

ITA 386/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya DCIT, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AAATJ2383F Revenue by Shri Lalchand, CIT Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande,CA Date of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the A.Y. 2012- 13 is directed again…

The ACIT, 3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Kalani Industries Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…of the provision is not to be adopted. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 266 ITR 521 and also in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & CO. 204 ITR 412 (SC) further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal 403 ITR 97(Del). 6. On the contrary Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of recording of statement it was duly stated about the manner of un…

M/S Nanda Nagar Sahkari Sakh Santha, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1054/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Nanda Nagar Ito-3(3) Sahkari Sakh Sanstha Range-3 बनाम/ C/O M. Mehta & Co., Indore Vs. 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaaan1784B

Section 143(3)Section 6Section 80P(2)(a)

…ome into play only if there is any doubt with regard to the express language used. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing any rule of interpretation. He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. 204 ITR 412 (SC), it has held that the principle of liberal construction as contended by the assessee could not be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain and simple language used in the enactment. It would not be reasonable or permissible for the court to rewrite the section or substitute words of its own for the Nanda Nagar Sahkari Sanstha a…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…sessee of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal of Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Syngene International Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 222 (Bangaloer-Trib), wherein 16 the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. HLS India Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 292 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. N. Venkatraman [2000] 245 ITR 73 (Madras) was considered and finally held that the processing of date or information will tantamount to manufacture or production of article or thin…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Spray Engineering Devices Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 369/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…ted to the items manufactured or produced by the assessee. The word manufacturing or production is not defined in the Act. The distinction of the word ‘manufacturing’ or ‘production’ was clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 4121 wherein it has been held as under : "The word ‘production’ has a wider connotation than the word ‘manufacture’. While every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The test evolved for determining whether manufacture can be ITA Nos. 367 & 368/Chd/2015 & 487/Chd/2016- M/s Spray Engineering…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed while the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1978/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40

…ITA.1978 & 2001/Bang/2017 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1978/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant v. M/s. JSW Steel Processing Centres Ltd, No.121, “The Estate”, Dickenson Road, Bengaluru 560 042 .. Respondent PAN : AABCJ7646P I.T.A No.2001/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) (By the Assessee) Assessee by : Shri. K. Kotresh, CA Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Heard on : 01.03.2018…

Asst.C.I.T., Bellary vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, Bellary

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

ITA 32/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Prasad, CITFor Respondent: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 40

…ns tailing but converted into a powder. In view of this clause and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & CO. (Supra), it can be held that the assessee is engaged in these units in manufacturing. 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…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 872/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…n’ has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, a Larger Bench of Three Learned Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331, 334 (SC), following the earlier judgment in CIT vs N.C. Budharaja & Co. & Anr. (1993) 204 ITR 412, 423 (SC), clearly held and observed that the word ‘production’ has a wider connotation than the word ‘manufacture’. While 4 I.T.A. Nos. 871/872 & 1001/1002/Kol/2015 W.B. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The word ‘production’ or ‘produ…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…n’ has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, a Larger Bench of Three Learned Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331, 334 (SC), following the earlier judgment in CIT vs N.C. Budharaja & Co. & Anr. (1993) 204 ITR 412, 423 (SC), clearly held and observed that the word ‘production’ has a wider connotation than the word ‘manufacture’. While 4 I.T.A. Nos. 871/872 & 1001/1002/Kol/2015 W.B. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The word ‘production’ or ‘produ…