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, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1002/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…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1001/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…

M/S. Ujjal Transport Agency, Asansol vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xvi, Kolkata

In the result, assessee's CO is partly allowed”

ITA 1601/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1601/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Ujjal Transport Agency, -Vs- Dcit, Central, Circle-Xvi, Kolkata G.T.Road(East), Murgasole Asansol Pan : Aaafu 6732 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Amit Agarwal, Adv. For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2014 Order

For Appellant: A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…lla argued that if the mining of limestone is not a manufacturing process, the winning of coal cannot also be either manufacture or production. 11. He further argued on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. N. C.Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 4122 , that if a construction of a dam is made, it does not amount to production or manufacture of an article, as the Supreme Court has clearly opined. 12. We take note that in N.C. Budharaja & Co.'s case (supra), the Supreme Court clearly stated at page 423 that not all production is manufacture, but all manufacture is production. Mr. Bajoria appea…

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…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…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…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…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Mahaveer Calyx, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 610/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Jha, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 80Section 80I

…w that the learned CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Petron Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. reported in 175 ITR 523, Pandian Chemicals Ltd. reported in 262 ITR 278, N.C. Budharaja & Co. reported in 204 ITR 412, IPCA Laboratories Ltd. reported in 266 ITR 521 to arrive at the view that the tax incentive by way of deduction. 80 IB of the Act is predominantly for the purpose of augmenting affordable dwelling and ought to be interpreted in that light. In this view of the matter, the incentive provisions must be construed in a manner which advances the objec…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2033/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 Pan – Afypk0221L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Tikekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 PAN – AFYPK0221L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Saurabh Deshpande Respondent by: Shri Deepak Tikekar Date of Hearing: 29.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(…

Sa Packaging, Delhi vs. CIT- XI, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated 30

ITA 2130/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi, M/S. Sa Packaging, C/O- Amit Sudershan & Associates, 907- New Delhi 908, 9Th Floor, Klj Tower North, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi Pan : Abhfs3629M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/02/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Original Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer On 25/08/2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.32,53,534/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Subsequently, The Commissioner Of Income Tax Examined The Assessment Records & Observed That The Assessee Did Not Manufacture Any Article Or Thing, Which Is A Prerequisite For Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Accordingly, He Issued A Notice

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-XI, M/s. SA Packaging, C/o- Amit Sudershan & Associates, 907- New Delhi 908, 9th Floor, KLJ Tower North, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi PAN : ABHFS3629M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.09.2016 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/02/2014 pa…

M/S. Sukripam Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5561/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Sukripam Worldwide Vs. Acit, Circle 59(3) S 205, Rajkamal Sadan New Delhi Preet Vihar, Commercial Complex New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri K.Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 2Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…ng 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 and 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 Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 829/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K.B. Muralidaran, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80I

…le for those engaged in the manufacture of production .and the instant assessee company is engaged in the business of civil construction. 3.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the Apex Court's decision in the case of N.C. Budharaja & Company reported in 204 ITR 412 (SC) the facts of which is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee company wherein it was held that production of ready mix concrete does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined ujs.32(1)(iia). 3.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Builders Association of India vs. UOI reported in 2…

Asst CIT 6(2) (Earlier CC 35), Mumbai vs. Gannon Dunkerly & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7141/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7141/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-Cent.Cir-6(2) M/S. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.Ltd. 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Bldg. (Earlier Cc-35) Vs. Room No.104, First Floor, A.K. Nayak Marg, Mumbai-400 001. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacg 1846 P Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K.V. Vispute-Dr Assessee By: Shri P.H. Marfatia-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 02.09.2014,Of The Cit(A)-1,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee, Company,Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Civil Engineering, Filed Its Return Of Income On 15/10/2007,Declaring Income At Rs.148.79 Crores.The Assessing Office(Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 3/3/ 2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.160.84 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri P.H. Marfatia-ARFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…H and Sec; 80-I of the Act therefore the issue relating to the activities of the assessee are settled and decided in favour of the assessee, However the AO was of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two decisions namely CIT Vs N.C. Buddharaj '& Co 204 ITR 412 and Builder Association of India Vs Union of India 209 ITR 877 has held that construction of building, bridges or quarters etc. cannot be construed to mean manufacture or production of any article or thing.The AO following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court disallowed the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,53,19,184/-. 13. T…

M/S Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…(i). ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA Nos. 142, 143, 483 & 484) (ITAT Cuttack). (ii). CIT vs. VRM India Ltd. (ITA No. 2069/2010 (Delh. HC) (iii). CIT vs. M/s. Sarkar Builders (Civil Appeal No.4476 of 2015)(SC) (iv). CIT vs. Budharaja (NC) & Co. 204 ITR 412 (SC) (v). ACIT vs. RR Constructions (ITA No. 2061/Mds/10 (Chennai Bench) (vi). Om Metal Infraprojects Ltd. vs. CIT, 26 DTR (Jp)Trib) 359 (vii) M/s. Maytas-NCC(JV) v. ACIT (ITA No. 1875/Hyd/11 (Hyd. Tribunal) (viii). CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. & Ors., 322 ITR 323 (Bom. HC) (ix). Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ (Mum) 646(Mum. Tribuna…

M/S Sa Packaging, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated

ITA 2519/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sa Packing, Vs. Cit, N-8/B, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Abhfs3629M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, Adv. Department By: Shri Bk Singh, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revisional Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed On 25.3.2013 Has Been Impugned By The Assessee.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri BK Singh, CIT( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…produce any article or thing". The word 'produce' has wider meaning than the word "manufacture". The meaning of the word 'produce' is similar to the word "production" and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja& Co.: (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) that while every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The quoted passage from the said decision of the Supreme Court is as under: "The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…acturing’’ and judicial decisions. The ld. Authorised Representative substantiated the process of manufacturing of monuments before the Assessing Officer referred at page 2 and 3 of assessment order and relied on the decision of CIT vs. N.C. Bootharaja & Co 204 ITR 412 (SC), Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd vs. CIT 210 Taxmann 257 and ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd 320 ITR 79 (SC). The ld. Assessing Officer considered the submissions and interpreted the definition introduced in Finance Act, 2009 in his order as under:- ‘’manufacture’’ with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non-living physica…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. M/S Khanna Brothers

The appeals are dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances, with no

ITA/490/2015HC Delhi17 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80I

…ditor had not given any description of finished goods as "no such article or thing manufactured or produced by the Assessee could be ascertained." The AO referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C. Budhraja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) and held that the fabrication work done by the Assessee and erected at the factory site of the contractee cannot be called manufacture. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877 (SC) where it was held that construction of a dam, building, bridge or roa…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Khanna Brothers

The appeals are dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances, with no

ITA/972/2015HC Delhi17 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 80I

…had not given any description of finished goods as “no such article or thing manufactured or produced by the Assessee could be ascertained.” The AO referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C. Budhraja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) and held that the fabrication work done by the Assessee and erected at the factory site of the contractee cannot be called manufacture. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877 (SC) where it was held that construction of a dam, building, bridge or…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…2013 & 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 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 Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 I…