CIT v. Taj Fire

288 ITR 92High Court2007#17532 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Taj Fire

Wichitra Auto Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 104/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 36(1)(v)

…nery from one place to another, which is related to the capital asset. It should be considered as capital expenditure and the Ld.CIT(A) placing reliance in the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Fire Works Industries in (2007) 288 ITR 92(Mad.), which is squarely 5 covered on the issue relating to expenses incurred on shifting certain plant and machinery from one of its factories to the other, observed as capital in nature. Accordingly, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed on this issue. This ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. The next ground is with regard to d…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2226/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…Whereas, M/s. Tablets India Ltd did not have a manufacturing unit and hence it cannot claim deduction u/s.80IB. The outsourced activity carried on by the assessee appellant constituted manufacture in view of the decision in CIT vs. Taj Fire works Industries, (288 ITR 92). In the AY 200tl-09, it similarly held relying on the earlier decision. 9. The provisions u/s.80IB provide for specified deductions to an industrial undertaking which manufacture or produce an article or thing. The provisions of Sec. 2(29BA) introduced from 1.4.2009 defines manufacturing which mandates change in a non living physical object or a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2225/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…Whereas, M/s. Tablets India Ltd did not have a manufacturing unit and hence it cannot claim deduction u/s.80IB. The outsourced activity carried on by the assessee appellant constituted manufacture in view of the decision in CIT vs. Taj Fire works Industries, (288 ITR 92). In the AY 200tl-09, it similarly held relying on the earlier decision. 9. The provisions u/s.80IB provide for specified deductions to an industrial undertaking which manufacture or produce an article or thing. The provisions of Sec. 2(29BA) introduced from 1.4.2009 defines manufacturing which mandates change in a non living physical object or a…

Asst CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Generics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5515/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5515/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, M/S. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, World Trade Centre, Mumbai -400 026 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 9820D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Ms. Bharti M. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :05 .02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti M. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 80Section 80I

…“5. The ld. CIT(A) has appreciated this submissions therefore he has held that the machining charges received by the assessee did qualify the deduction u/s 80IB after considering the precedents namely Rane (Madras) Ltd., 238 ITR 377, Taj Fire Works Industries 288 ITR 92 (Mad.) and Northern Aromatics Ltd., 196 CTR 479 (Del.) .We find no fallacy in the decision of ld. CIT(A) for allowing the claim in respect of machining charges received by the assessee. However, the question before us as raised from the side of the assessee is in respect of scrap sales. In this regard the submission of the assessee was that the sc…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1223/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2011
Section 10ASection 260A

…ivity was manufacture or not, was independent of the question of ownership of the gold. He relied upon decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT versus J.B. Kharwar& Sons,[1987] 163 ITR 394 and the Madras High Court in Taj Fire Works Industries, [2007] 288 ITR 92. 6.4 The tribunal has upheld the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) and held that the primary gold was put to mechanical, physical and chemical process before it was converted into gold jewellery. The primary gold was melted by applying heat, mixed with copper through chemical process poured into dyes or drawn into wires etc. by physical and…

CIT v. Taj Fire (288 ITR 92) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax