CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.

240 ITR 434High Court1999#5881 most cited

What is CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd. authority for?

For entitlement to deduction under Section 10A/10AA, an industrial undertaking must be newly established, and the articles produced need not be different from those produced in the assessee's existing undertakings, as long as a new, independent unit is brought into existence with fresh capital.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd. · Section 10A · Section 10AA · Section 80J · newly established industrial undertaking · splitting up of business · reconstruction of business · independent unit · fresh capital

Also reported as

108 Taxmann 2018

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(iii)Section 10AASection 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(2)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 80jsection 10btax benefitsection 80ia(4)going concerneligible businesssection 80icsection 10asection 80iasection 69bsection 80igross total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 10A

…Case Law Compilation c. Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (443 ITR 34) – Page 57 of Case Law Compilation d. Ruling of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills (240 ITR 434) – Page 60 of Case Law Compilation e. Ruling of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Super Spg. Mills Ltd. vs CIT (265 ITR 233) – Page 66 of Case Law Compilation f. Ruling of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan General Industries Ltd (137 ITR 851) – Page 71 of Case Law Compilation 17. The Hon’ble Supreme…

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

…se Law Compilation c. Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (443 ITR 34) – Page 57 of Case Law Compilation d. Ruling of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills (240 ITR 434) Page 60 of Case Law Compilation e. Ruling of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Super Spg. Mills Ltd. vs CIT (265 ITR 233) – Page 66 of Case Law Compilation f. Ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan General Industries Ltd (137 ITR 851) – Page 71 of Case Law Compilation 17. The Hon'ble Supreme…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर. एल रे"ी, उपा"" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Income Tax, vs. Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, Central Circle -1, Trichy. No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [PAN:AAGPR-3421-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरस…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

ITA 3316/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री धुव्वुरु आर. एल रेड्डी, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [PAN:AAGPR-3421-A] (प्रत्…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री धुव्वुरु आर. एल रेड्डी, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) VS. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [PAN:AAGPR-3421-A] (प्रत्…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. AKSHAR METALS,, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 161/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.246/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & अपील सं./Ita No.161/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 A.C.I.T., M/S Akshar Metals, Circle-3, Vs. Geetanjali, Jamnagar. Summair Club Road, 2, Hathi Colony, Jamnagar. Pan: Aapfa6505K

For Appellant: Ms Bhavna Yashroy, CIT.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 10A

…re by it and that of AMPL and manufacturing process carried out both the entitles are distinct and even plant and machineries used are of different from each other. Even Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs premier Cotton Mills Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 434 has held that it was not required for deciding the question of splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business that the new undertaking should produce different article to that produced by the old unit. (v) It is pertinent to note that plant & machineries used by appellant firm have technical capabilities to produce the products as per cu…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S AKSHAR METALS,, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 246/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.246/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & अपील सं./Ita No.161/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 A.C.I.T., M/S Akshar Metals, Circle-3, Vs. Geetanjali, Jamnagar. Summair Club Road, 2, Hathi Colony, Jamnagar. Pan: Aapfa6505K

For Appellant: Ms Bhavna Yashroy, CIT.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 10A

…re by it and that of AMPL and manufacturing process carried out both the entitles are distinct and even plant and machineries used are of different from each other. Even Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs premier Cotton Mills Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 434 has held that it was not required for deciding the question of splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business that the new undertaking should produce different article to that produced by the old unit. (v) It is pertinent to note that plant & machineries used by appellant firm have technical capabilities to produce the products as per cu…

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3400/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

…rial undertaking. 4. The assessee, therefore, satisfied all the conditions laid down in section 84(2) and was entitled to the deduction contemplated in section 84(1),” Further again in one of its recent decisions in the case of cir V. Premier cotton Mills Ltd 240 ITR 434, the Madras High Court had discussed in more detail the splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. It was held that there is no requirement in section 80J of Income Tax Act that the article produced in the newly established industrial undertaking should be different from the one produced by the petitioner in its existing undertakings…

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3399/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

…rial undertaking. 4. The assessee, therefore, satisfied all the conditions laid down in section 84(2) and was entitled to the deduction contemplated in section 84(1),” Further again in one of its recent decisions in the case of cir V. Premier cotton Mills Ltd 240 ITR 434, the Madras High Court had discussed in more detail the splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. It was held that there is no requirement in section 80J of Income Tax Act that the article produced in the newly established industrial undertaking should be different from the one produced by the petitioner in its existing undertakings…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3290/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3289/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3288/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3287/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3286/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3285/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 1999-00
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1390/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1389/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1388/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 1999-2000 appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent

ITA 1385/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801ASection 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 1999-2000 appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent

ITA 1384/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801ASection 80I

…dustries Ltd. (supra) has specifically noted that there was no requirement for obtaining separate Government registration for each unit for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.,240 ITR 434(Mad) has laid down that even a single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership would not render the undertaking, which is otherwise capable of being separately viewed, into a common undertaking. In our view, the fact that the new undertaking so established by way of expansion is locate…

CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd. (240 ITR 434) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax