CIT v. Tara Agencies

292 ITR 444Supreme Court of India2007#1422 most cited

What is CIT v. Tara Agencies authority for?

When interpreting fiscal legislation, courts must adhere strictly to the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, without introducing intendment, equity, or words not present in the text, irrespective of perceived hardship. The legislative intent must be gathered solely from what has been said and not said in the statutory language.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tara Agencies · 292 ITR 444 · Supreme Court · statutory interpretation · fiscal legislation interpretation · plain language rule · no equity in tax law · legislative intent · literal construction · section 115JB · section 14A · section 80JJAA

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 337

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80-IESection 80JJAA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 14a disallowancereal income theorysection 80jjasection 80jjaamat credittrade creditorsweighted deductionprohibited by lawtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitionincome tax settlement commission

Judgments citing CIT v. Tara Agencies

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tea Propoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…quent of the passage of the assessment order u/s.143(3) 10.03.2005 the matter of blending of tea was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement passed on 09.07.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Tara Agencies (292 ITR 444) held that tea blending will not amount to manufacturing. Therefore, the AO on the date of reopening had clear cut information of the correct state of law as derived from the judgements of both the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mist…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…quent of the passage of the assessment order u/s.143(3) 10.03.2005 the matter of blending of tea was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement passed on 09.07.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Tara Agencies (292 ITR 444) held that tea blending will not amount to manufacturing. Therefore, the AO on the date of reopening had clear cut information of the correct state of law as derived from the judgements of both the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mist…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…quent of the passage of the assessment order u/s.143(3) 10.03.2005 the matter of blending of tea was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement passed on 09.07.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Tara Agencies (292 ITR 444) held that tea blending will not amount to manufacturing. Therefore, the AO on the date of reopening had clear cut information of the correct state of law as derived from the judgements of both the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mist…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6459/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 AY: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vs ACIT, Corporate Office, Circle 2(1), Taxation Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5916/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 AY: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vs ACIT, Corporate Office, Circle 2(1), Taxation Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pro…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 AY: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vs ACIT, Corporate Office, Circle 2(1), Taxation Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pro…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 AY: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vs ACIT, Corporate Office, Circle 2(1), Taxation Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pro…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Ajay I.. Thakore, Mumbai

ITA 6917/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room No.479, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aabpt 0802 G आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6602/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Ajay I. Thakore Vs. Acit-11(2) Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.Murli Assessee By: Shri Ajay Indrajit Thakore सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.25/7/2011 Of The Cit(A)-3 Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee, An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 20/07/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.56.22 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 21. 12.2010,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.40 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Indrajit ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 254(1)Section 45Section 49Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(ii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room no.479, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. PAN:AABPT 0802 G आयकर अपील…

M/S. Intergarden (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1292/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1292/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Chand Yadav, Advocate & Shri. Suresh Balani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Shri. Manoj Kumar, Add. CIT
Section 10BSection 144CSection 234B

…to him in the case of Chillies Export House (supra) relied on by the assessee, the matter was remitted back to the AO for better investigation on the process involved therein. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Tara Agencies (292 ITR 444), AO held that processing could not be considered as manufacturing activity. As per the ITA.1292/Bang/2010; IT(TP)A.887,963/Bang/2013 Page - 7 AO, when the legislature had distinguished between manufacture and processing, then both activities could not be considered as the same. AO held that deduction u/s.10A or 10B of the Act could be given onl…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…adding or supplying words to it. It is contrary to all Page 38 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 rules of construction to read words into statute which the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated as held in CIT vs Tara Agency [2007] 292 ITR 444 at 464 (SC). 13.16. The true function of the Court is to interpret the law not to make it. It is well-settled that even if the legislature falls short of the mark, the Court can do nothing more than declare it be thus, giving its reasons, so that the Legislature may take notice and promptly remedy the situation. Reliance can be placed on Standard…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3304/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…adding or supplying words to it. It is contrary to all Page 38 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 rules of construction to read words into statute which the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated as held in CIT vs Tara Agency [2007] 292 ITR 444 at 464 (SC). 13.16. The true function of the Court is to interpret the law not to make it. It is well-settled that even if the legislature falls short of the mark, the Court can do nothing more than declare it be thus, giving its reasons, so that the Legislature may take notice and promptly remedy the situation. Reliance can be placed on Standard…

CIT-7

ITA/190/2015HC Delhi09 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…efinition of ‘manufacture’ under Section 2 (29BA) would not apply in the present case as it was introduced only with effect from 1st April 2009. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tara Agencies (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) where for the purposes of Section 35B (1A) of the Act (as it then stood) it was held that the process of blending of tea by the Assessee “falls short of either manufacturing or production”. 16. Mr. Sahni referred to the definition of ‘thing, article and manufacture’ in the Black's Law Dictionary. He is submitted that 'manufacture' imp…

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

ITA/551/2013HC Delhi05 Feb 2015
Section 10B

…ITA 551/2013 & 553/2013 Page 1 of 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 551/2013 and 553/2013 Reserved on: 15th December, 2014 % Date of Decision: 5th February, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax – I ....Appellant Through Mr. N.P.Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing counsel and Mr. Juoy James, Advocate. Versus M/s AAR ESS EXIM PVT. LTD. …Respondent Throug…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/14/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…C:553-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 9 otherwise not fit, the change/process falls within the meaning of the word "manufacture". 9. Besides referring to and following the above decision, the ITAT also cited Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC) where the Supreme Court, after noticing that the Act did not define “manufacture” turned to the definition of that expression in the Central Excise Act, 1944 The relevant extracts of that decision are as follows: "11. The term manufacture has not been defined in the Income- tax Act, 1961. 12. The term manufacture has been defined in section…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/13/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…C:552-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 9 otherwise not fit, the change/process falls within the meaning of the word "manufacture". 9. Besides referring to and following the above decision, the ITAT also cited Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC) where the Supreme Court, after noticing that the Act did not define “manufacture” turned to the definition of that expression in the Central Excise Act, 1944 The relevant extracts of that decision are as follows: "11. The term manufacture has not been defined in the Income- tax Act, 1961. 12. The term manufacture has been defined in section…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/15/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…C:548-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 9 otherwise not fit, the change/process falls within the meaning of the word "manufacture". 9. Besides referring to and following the above decision, the ITAT also cited Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC) where the Supreme Court, after noticing that the Act did not define “manufacture” turned to the definition of that expression in the Central Excise Act, 1944 The relevant extracts of that decision are as follows: "11. The term manufacture has not been defined in the Income- tax Act, 1961. 12. The term manufacture has been defined in section…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2002HC Delhi22 Dec 2014
Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 88H

…icle fit for use, which it is otherwise not fit, the change/process falls within the meaning of the word “manufacture”. 11. We may refer with profit to the Supreme Court‟s elucidation in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v Messrs Tara Agencies,[2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC). Herein the Supreme Court has turned to the definition provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944 among other relevant definitions. The relevant paragraphs of this decision are reproduced below: “11. The term manufacture has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961. 12. The term manufacture has been defined in section 2(f) of the C…

M/S Puttur Petro Products Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, as has been held by the Bombay

ITA/393/2007HC Karnataka07 Oct 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143Section 260Section 80HSection 80I

…nt to ‘manufacture’ for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IB. 8. Our attention was also invited by Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue to the judgment of the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 to contend that the bottling of gas into gas cylinders would not amount to either manufacturing or production and it would amount to processing. In that case, the assessee was dealing with tea of diverse grades and brands and blending the same by mixing different kinds of tea. There the Supreme Court considered all the three stages, v…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited

ITTA/303/2013HC Telangana17 Jul 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax

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

…icle fit for use, which it is otherwise not fit, the change/process falls within the meaning of the word “manufacture”. 11. We may refer with profit to the Supreme Court‟s elucidation in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v Messrs Tara Agencies,[2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC). Herein the Supreme Court has turned to the definition provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944 among other relevant definitions. The relevant paragraphs of this decision are reproduced below: “11. The term manufacture has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961. 12. The term manufacture has been defined in section 2(f) of the…