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.

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

…ring activity. 6. The AR has brought on record many case laws decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and Jurisdictional Kolkata bench of ITAT on this issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [2004] 271 ITR 331 held that "The definition was adopted from the meaning ascribed to the word in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning "amongst other things that which is produced; a thing that results from any action, process or effort, a product; a product of human activity or effort". From the wide definition of the word "production", it has to follow that m…

Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 6791/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6791/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/s. BG Exploration & Production vs. DCIT, India Limited, International Taxation, Lake Boulevard Road, Dehradun. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. (PAN : AAACE4569K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate Shri Sahil Sharma, CA REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.04.2018 Date of Order : 17.07.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBE…

ACIT, Sambalpur vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the various judicial decisions including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT s. Sesa Goa Ltd., 271 ITR 331 (SC). 108. Having heard the rival submission and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee company is producing coal and the coal became excisable vide Notification No.1/2011-Central Excise of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue w.e.f 1.3.2011. The 46 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in th…

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…

M/S. Bla Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Bla Industries Pvt.Ltd. V/S. Pr. Cit-1, 84, Maker Chambers Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Kolkata 400021 [Pan No.Aabcb 3505 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit-Dt ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02--2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In M.No.Pr. Cit-1/15- 16/U/S263/Bla Industries/2011-12/12629-31 Dated 23/28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Shri Robin Maheshwari, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 2. In This Assessee’S Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1) For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Hence Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…ort its claim has relied on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. G.S. Atwl & Co.(Gua) (2002) 254 ITR 592 (Cal) b) Khalsa Brothers vs. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 185 (Cal) c) CIT vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. (11996) 221 ITR 48W(AP) d) CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) However, Ld. Pr.CIT was of the view that no necessary enquiry has been conducted by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding, which rendered the order of AO as erroneous in so far a prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, Ld. Pr.CIT held that the order of AO is erroneous in so far a prejudicial to the interest of revenu…

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)

…or thing with a different chemical composition or integral structure; 2. The expression ‘production’ 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 characteri…

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)

…or thing with a different chemical composition or integral structure; 2. The expression ‘production’ 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 characteri…

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)

…or thing with a different chemical composition or integral structure; 2. The expression ‘production’ 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 characteri…

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)

…or thing with a different chemical composition or integral structure; 2. The expression ‘production’ 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 characteri…

DCIT, Tuticorin vs. Indian Ocean Garnet Sand Company, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1271/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.ARV.Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…cal object resulting in transformation of the object into a new and distinct object having a different name, character and use. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had relied upon by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (142 Taxmann 16) wherein it has been held that extracting and processing of iron ore amounts to production of an article or thing. It was a submission that the assessee was only doing separation of garnet sand from beach sand by using various processes and therefore the same could not be held to be manufacture. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.…

Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd

C.A. No.-009295-009295 - 2017Supreme Court03 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80Section 80H

…production” in addition to the word “manufacture”. One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while deciding the question as to whether the activity constitutes manufacture or production. Therefore, looking to the nature of the activity 7 (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) 16 stepwise, we are of the view that the subject activity certainly constitutes “manufacture or production” in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Departme…

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

…2th July, 2007 read with Misc. Application in MA No. 23/PNJ/2007 dt. 19th July, 2007 in the case of Chowgule & Co. In this case we noted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has interpretedthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa 271 ITR 331 that extraction and processing of mining ore amounts to production; and one should read the expression 'extraction and processing' together (this decision was not rendered in respect of exemption available u/s 10B). Even the coordinate bench of this Tribunal further held that "if section 10B provides exemption for processing also, the law would h…

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

…2th July, 2007 read with Misc. Application in MA No. 23/PNJ/2007 dt. 19th July, 2007 in the case of Chowgule & Co. In this case we noted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has interpretedthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa 271 ITR 331 that extraction and processing of mining ore amounts to production; and one should read the expression 'extraction and processing' together (this decision was not rendered in respect of exemption available u/s 10B). Even the coordinate bench of this Tribunal further held that "if section 10B provides exemption for processing also, the law would h…

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

…on ’article’ or ’thing’. The language of Section 80-1 (2)(iii) of the Act, thus clearly, indicates that Unit Nos.2 & 3 do "manufacture or produce an article or thing". 57. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. SESA Goa Limited: (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) considered the question whether extraction and processing of iron ore amounted to manufacture or not in the context of availability of investment allowance under section 32(A) of the Act in respect of machinery used in the mining activity. In that case, revenue contended that processing of iron ore did not produce any new product and thus th…

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

…on 'article' or 'thing'. The language of Section 80-I (2)(iii) of the Act, thus clearly, indicates that Unit Nos.2 & 3 do "manufacture or produce an article or thing". 57. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. SESA Goa Limited: (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) considered the question whether extraction and processing of iron ore amounted to manufacture or not in the context of availability of investment allowance under section 32(A) of the Act in respect of machinery used in the mining activity. In that case, revenue contended that processing of iron ore did not produce any new product and thus t…

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

…tion u/s.10B and relied on the Supreme Court and High Courts decisions as under:- ‘’(i) Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd ( 320 ITR 79) (SC) (ii) Ambika Recycling (2014) (45 Taxmann.com 386) (Guj) (iii) Budharaha and Co. (204 ITR 412) (SC) (iv) SesaGoa Ltd. (271 ITR 331) (SC) (v) Vijay Shipping Corporation (314 ITR 309) (SC) (vi) Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd (210 Taxman 257) (vii) Gem Granities (141 Taxman 528) (vii) John Brown Technologies India P. Ltd (257CTR370) Kar’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts, observations of the Assessing Officer and relevant materials, is of the opinion…

Commissioner of Income tAx vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy

The appeals stand dismissed

ITTA/6/2009HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10BSection 36(1)Section 80H

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s. Manglam Arts, Govind Nagar, Amber Palace Road, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. K.D. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 31/07/2017 By way of this appeal, the appellant has…

M/S Sdi Mineral Export Co., Gadag vs. ITO, Gadag

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

ITA 1187/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…also involved in the production, ought to have allowed the claim of the assessee towards additional depreciation in full. 6. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the judicial precedence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd.(2004) 271 ITR 331(SC) and also several other cases and ought to ha e held that the assessee was 3 ITA No.1187(Bang)2015 entitled to additional depreciation under sec.32(iia) of the Act. 7. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer. 8. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Udupi vs. Sri Ashok M Shetty, Udupi

In the result, the revenue’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 1436/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George, K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 2

…cture’. The learned DR also submitted that the CIT (A) erred in relying upon the decisions of the (i) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Puttur Petro Products Pvt. Ltd [40 Taxman 430] and (ii) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa [271 ITR 331 (SC)] as they were not applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the assessee’s case. In conclusion, the Ld. DR prayed that the order of the CIT (A) deserves to be set aside on the above points and that of the orders of the AO be restored. On the other hand, the ld. AR reiterated more or less what has been represented before the First A…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-480/2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…on ‘article’ or ‘thing’. The language of Section 80-I (2)(iii) of the Act, thus clearly, indicates that Unit Nos.2 & 3 do “manufacture or produce an article or thing”. 57. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. SESA Goa Limited: (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) considered the question whether extraction and processing of iron ore amounted to manufacture or not in the context of availability of investment allowance under section 32(A) of the Act in respect of machinery used in the mining activity. In that case, revenue contended that processing of iron ore did not produce any new product and thus th…