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.

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

ITA-302/2002HC 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…

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

ITA-151/2002HC 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITR-49-50/1996HC 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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Lt

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…

CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA - 302 / 2002HC 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/302/2002HC 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/151/2002HC 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax

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…

Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. Moole Rami Reddy

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/450/2011HC Telangana01 Feb 2012
Section 80Section 80I

…ithin the preview, an activity, which may not amount of ‘manufacture’ but may still amount to ‘production’ as held in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2007) 211 CTR (Raj.) 169, following the decision in CIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC),?” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P. Limited reported in [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC). 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lucky Mineral Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. Th…

Comm of Incometax Rajahindry vs. A.Venkateswarlu Ors Kakinada

ITTA/61/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Sidwal Refrigeration Ind. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1)

ITA/1154/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 80I

…ion 84(7).” 2009:DHC:5666 17. We may note here that learned counsel for the Revenue had made a fervent plea before us to discard the aforesaid interpretation in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., 271 ITR 331. In that case the question was as to whether extraction and processing of ore amounts to production or not within the meaning of Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The court was thus called upon to decide as to what is the meaning of production. It was in all together in different context. On the other hand question before us is not as to wh…

Income Tax Officer, Udaipur vs. M/S Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P)Ltd

C.A. No.-008036-008036 - 2009Supreme Court02 Dec 2009
Section 2Section 80I

…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 Department. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., reported in 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word "production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee…