CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

271 ITR 331Supreme Court of India2004#1229 most cited

What is CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. authority for?

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

92

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Sesa Goa Ltd · Sesa Goa · Section 32A · Section 32(1)(iia) · production · manufacture · mining activity · iron ore · investment allowance · additional depreciation

Also reported as

142 Taxmann 16

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(29BA)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 32ACSection 80-ISection 80-IASection 80-IB

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 32asection 35dsection 32(1)(ii)slump saledomestic company

Judgments citing CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. M/S Secl, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 382/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…/2017, 204/RPR/2017, 169/RPR/2018, 33/RPR/2019 204/BIL/2012, 382/BIL/2014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 It is submitted that mining of iron ore is ‘production’ as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Sesa Goa Ltd [(2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC)]. Further, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that coal mining is ‘production’ in CIT v G S Atwal {(2002) 254 ITR 592 (Calcutta)]. The assessee submits that it has disclosed such dumpers under plant and machinery in its financial Statements and tax audit report. Further, additional depreciation was claimed in the preceding and Subsequent y…

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coafields Limited, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 204/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…/2017, 204/RPR/2017, 169/RPR/2018, 33/RPR/2019 204/BIL/2012, 382/BIL/2014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 It is submitted that mining of iron ore is ‘production’ as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Sesa Goa Ltd [(2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC)]. Further, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that coal mining is ‘production’ in CIT v G S Atwal {(2002) 254 ITR 592 (Calcutta)]. The assessee submits that it has disclosed such dumpers under plant and machinery in its financial Statements and tax audit report. Further, additional depreciation was claimed in the preceding and Subsequent y…

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…/2017, 204/RPR/2017, 169/RPR/2018, 33/RPR/2019 204/BIL/2012, 382/BIL/2014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 It is submitted that mining of iron ore is ‘production’ as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Sesa Goa Ltd [(2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC)]. Further, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that coal mining is ‘production’ in CIT v G S Atwal {(2002) 254 ITR 592 (Calcutta)]. The assessee submits that it has disclosed such dumpers under plant and machinery in its financial Statements and tax audit report. Further, additional depreciation was claimed in the preceding and Subsequent y…

Trimax Sands P Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 252/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.252/Chny/2021 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S.Trimex Sands Private Limited Pr. Cit बनाम 1, Subbaraya Avenue Trimex Towers Chennai-3, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabce-3846-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 263Section 263oSection 32(1)(ii)Section 32ASection 33A

…ccordingly, the assessee was put to show cause notice. 5. The assessee assailed the revision on the ground that the definition of manufacturing u/s 2(29BA) include ‘production’. This term, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (271 ITR 331), is much wider in its scope. Anything that results from any production process or as a result of effort of human activity, the same can be regarded as production. Reliance was placed on many other decisions to support the submissions. Finally, the assessee justified the aforesaid claim of deduction u/s 32AC. On the issue of additional depreciati…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2359/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69ASection 6A

…pounded in the various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of Hon'ble High Court is understood. In the case of India Cine Agency (308 ITR 98). Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its judgment rendered in the case of Sesa Goa (271 ITR 331) and all other decisions on the point which contemplate the meaning of expression "manufacture" as well as "production". In the case of India Cine Agency, assessee was carrying on business of conversion of Jumbo Rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes. It claimed deduction under sec. 80-HH and 80-1 as well as inves…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 319/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…eas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High Court that the activity in question constituted 'production' has been affirmed by this court in Sesa Goa Ltd. case [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word 'production' is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. In our view, applying the tests laid down by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 318/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…eas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High Court that the activity in question constituted 'production' has been affirmed by this court in Sesa Goa Ltd. case [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word 'production' is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. In our view, applying the tests laid down by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 240/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…eas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High Court that the activity in question constituted 'production' has been affirmed by this court in Sesa Goa Ltd. case [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word 'production' is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. In our view, applying the tests laid down by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 239/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…eas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High Court that the activity in question constituted 'production' has been affirmed by this court in Sesa Goa Ltd. case [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word 'production' is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. In our view, applying the tests laid down by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Air Products (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 238/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…eas it was argued on behalf of the assessee that it did produce a distinct new product. The view expressed by the High Court that the activity in question constituted 'production' has been affirmed by this court in Sesa Goa Ltd. case [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 saying that the High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this court that the word 'production' is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. In our view, applying the tests laid down by…

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

…of the Act as this provision not only covers those assessees which are involved in the process of manufacture but also those who are undertaking ‘production’ of the goods. Taking note of the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) which was rendered in the context of Section 32A of the Act and which provision also applies in respect of ‘production’, the Court reiterated the ratio in Sesa Goa Ltd. to hold that the word ‘production’ was wider than the word ‘manufacture’. On that basis, finding arrived at by the Court was that though cutting of marble blocks into marble…

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…as the assessee in engaged extraction of mineral oil which in our consideration view amount to production of articles or things. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd reported in 271 ITR 331 where the Hon’ble court held as under: 9. The reasoning given by the High Courts, in the decisions noted by us earlier, is, in our opinion, unimpeachable. This Court had, as early as in 1961, in Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 150 defined the word "production", albeit, in connection which the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1…

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…as the assessee in engaged extraction of mineral oil which in our consideration view amount to production of articles or things. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd reported in 271 ITR 331 where the Hon’ble court held as under: 9. The reasoning given by the High Courts, in the decisions noted by us earlier, is, in our opinion, unimpeachable. This Court had, as early as in 1961, in Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 150 defined the word "production", albeit, in connection which the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1…

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…overs those assessees which are involved in the 14 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) process of manufacture but also those who are undertaking ‘production’ of the goods. Taking note of the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) which was rendered in the context of Section 32A of the Act and which provision also applies in respect of ‘production’, the Court reiterated the ratio in Sesa Goa Ltd. to hold that the word ‘production’ was wider than the word ‘manufacture’. On that basis, finding arrived at by the Court was that though cutting of marble blocks into marble…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…overs those assessees which are involved in the 14 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) process of manufacture but also those who are undertaking ‘production’ of the goods. Taking note of the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) which was rendered in the context of Section 32A of the Act and which provision also applies in respect of ‘production’, the Court reiterated the ratio in Sesa Goa Ltd. to hold that the word ‘production’ was wider than the word ‘manufacture’. On that basis, finding arrived at by the Court was that though cutting of marble blocks into marble…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhansar Engineering Co.Pvt Ltd

In the result, we find that question no

ITAT/343/2017HC Calcutta14 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 32A(2)(b)

…n 254 ITR 592 for the proposition that mining of coal is production. Applying the said decision the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee. This issue has also been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in (2004) 271 ITR 331 wherein it was held that extraction and 4 processing of mineral ore amounts to “production” within the meaning of word under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act”. Thus, the finding rendered by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The third substantial question of law is with regard to the correctness of the order passed by the Tribun…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…CIT Vs Dr B Venkata Rao 243 ITR 0081 (SC)Paper Book Pages 51 to 53 4. S K Tulsi and Sons Vs CIT 187 ITR 685 (Allahabad HC) Paper Book pages 49 to 50. 5. CIT Vs Shashi Nursing Home Ltd 269 CTR 99 (A11ahahad HC) Paper book pages 45 to 48. 6. CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 (SC) Paper book pages 41 to 44. 11.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee are in the nature of civil works which are not qualified for depreciation @ 15% as plant and machineries. 11.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materia…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…CIT Vs Dr B Venkata Rao 243 ITR 0081 (SC)Paper Book Pages 51 to 53 4. S K Tulsi and Sons Vs CIT 187 ITR 685 (Allahabad HC) Paper Book pages 49 to 50. 5. CIT Vs Shashi Nursing Home Ltd 269 CTR 99 (A11ahahad HC) Paper book pages 45 to 48. 6. CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 (SC) Paper book pages 41 to 44. 11.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee are in the nature of civil works which are not qualified for depreciation @ 15% as plant and machineries. 11.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materia…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…CIT Vs Dr B Venkata Rao 243 ITR 0081 (SC)Paper Book Pages 51 to 53 4. S K Tulsi and Sons Vs CIT 187 ITR 685 (Allahabad HC) Paper Book pages 49 to 50. 5. CIT Vs Shashi Nursing Home Ltd 269 CTR 99 (A11ahahad HC) Paper book pages 45 to 48. 6. CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 (SC) Paper book pages 41 to 44. 11.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee are in the nature of civil works which are not qualified for depreciation @ 15% as plant and machineries. 11.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materia…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…CIT Vs Dr B Venkata Rao 243 ITR 0081 (SC)Paper Book Pages 51 to 53 4. S K Tulsi and Sons Vs CIT 187 ITR 685 (Allahabad HC) Paper Book pages 49 to 50. 5. CIT Vs Shashi Nursing Home Ltd 269 CTR 99 (A11ahahad HC) Paper book pages 45 to 48. 6. CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd 271 ITR 331 (SC) Paper book pages 41 to 44. 11.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee are in the nature of civil works which are not qualified for depreciation @ 15% as plant and machineries. 11.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materia…