CIT v. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn

188 ITR 370High Court1991#13651 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

initial assessment yearsection 80icsection 80igross total incomesection 133(6)section 26section 80section 142(1)previous yearsection 143(2)opportunity of being heardsection 143

Judgments citing CIT v. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…sion for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not 13 to frustrate it as laid down in case of CIT v. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn. (1991) 188 ITR 370, 375(AII). 20. Amongst others, in the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that incentive provisions/beneficial provisions should be construed liberally: a) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC) "A provision In a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally!... Si…

M/S Asha Technologies, Kala Amb vs. ITO, Sirmour

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…purchaser of the products. The Ld. AO accepted hat the “feeder clamps” were being assembled to make “assembly” that itself shows that there was an act of manufacturing. In support of the aforesaid reliance was placed by the assessee on following judgments: i) 188 ITR 370 (All) = CIT Vs. UP State Agro Industrial Corporation (No1) ii) 2009 (178) Taxmann 22 (P&H) = [2009] 308 ITR 222 (P&H) CIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma. It was further contended by the assessee before CIT(A) that as per oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary the word “ Manufacture” means to make goods on a large scale using machinery. The term man…

M/S Asha Technologies, Sirmour vs. Addl. CIT, Solan

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…purchaser of the products. The Ld. AO accepted hat the “feeder clamps” were being assembled to make “assembly” that itself shows that there was an act of manufacturing. In support of the aforesaid reliance was placed by the assessee on following judgments: i) 188 ITR 370 (All) = CIT Vs. UP State Agro Industrial Corporation (No1) ii) 2009 (178) Taxmann 22 (P&H) = [2009] 308 ITR 222 (P&H) CIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma. It was further contended by the assessee before CIT(A) that as per oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary the word “ Manufacture” means to make goods on a large scale using machinery. The term man…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/192/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…f the respondent-assessee with the installation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/121/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…f the respondent-assessee with the installation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals, Vijayawada

ITTA/25/2017HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…f the respondent-assessee with the installation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision o…

The Commissioner of Inocme Tax vs. M/S Laila Nutraceuticals

ITTA/259/2015HC Andhra Pradesh24 Aug 2022

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,A V RAVINDRA BABU

Section 260

…f the respondent-assessee with the installation of nJwlniachinery. Hence, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax that there was no manufacturing process atall may not be correct. 18 23. some to the decisions of the 'I sMai s’ i ‘ 188 ITR 370 (All) 2 137 ITR 329 (MP) ’ 196 ITR 813 (Bom) 86 TTJ 298 (Mum) 137 ITR 879 (Mum) ®338 ITR 290 (Delhi) UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited^, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Premlatha Bai^, Bombay High Court in CIT v. Penwait India LimitetP, Sunrise Metal Industries v. ITCP, CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Limited^ and the decision o…