CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT

332 ITR 471High Court2011#14039 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…s. JCIT (2005) 93 ITD 520 (Del Tri) ii) Idandas vs. Anant Ramcharanara Phadke AIR 1982 SC 127 iii) CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Asphalt (2004) 266 ITR 630 (Mad.) iv) CIT vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001) 249 ITR 308 (SC) v) CIT vs. Gitwako Farms (I) P. Ltd. 332 ITR 471 (Del) vi) Dy. CST (Law) vs. Pio Foods Pacure (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC) vii) CIT vs. S.K. Transformers (P) Ltd. (2014) 45 taxmann.com 171(Allh.) viii) CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 104 taxman 204 (SC) ix) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 112 Taxman 46 (SC) x) CIT vs. Dewan Chand Satyapal (2013) 29 taxmann.com 235 (Del) xi) CIT vs. Relish Foods (199…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…s. JCIT (2005) 93 ITD 520 (Del Tri) ii) Idandas vs. Anant Ramcharanara Phadke AIR 1982 SC 127 iii) CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Asphalt (2004) 266 ITR 630 (Mad.) iv) CIT vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001) 249 ITR 308 (SC) v) CIT vs. Gitwako Farms (I) P. Ltd. 332 ITR 471 (Del) vi) Dy. CST (Law) vs. Pio Foods Pacure (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC) vii) CIT vs. S.K. Transformers (P) Ltd. (2014) 45 taxmann.com 171(Allh.) viii) CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 104 taxman 204 (SC) ix) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 112 Taxman 46 (SC) x) CIT vs. Dewan Chand Satyapal (2013) 29 taxmann.com 235 (Del) xi) CIT vs. Relish Foods (199…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…td.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283 ITR 486 (Raj), B.G.Chitale vs. DCIT: 305 ITR(AT) 81 (Pun SB), and CESTAT, Chandigarh in the case of Dunar Foods Ltd. v. CCE: 2017 (34…

M/S L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…td.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283 ITR 486 (Raj), B.G.Chitale vs. DCIT: 305 ITR(AT) 81 (Pun SB), and CESTAT, Chandigarh in the case of Dunar Foods Ltd. v. CCE: 2017 (34…

Pratap Ratan Das, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 68

…ndent of the previous years. If it is established that the same facts existed in. preceding year, it is amenable to take remedial action as per law to safeguard the interest of revenue. Accordingly this ground of appeal is rejected and action of AO is upheld (332 ITR 471 Delhi High Court).” 8. After hearing ld. DR and perusal of the record we are of the considered view that although ld. CIT(A) while considering the said issue has granted sufficient time to the assessee to substantiate his arguments by supporting documentary evidence/proof but even inspite of availing opportunities the assessee could not furnis…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…oducts and it falls within the first degree and benefit was extended. 101. However, the learned Counsel for the revenue relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GITWAKO FARMA (I) (P) LIMITED [(2011) 332 ITR 471] where it was held that, converting raw fish into tinned fish did not amount to manufacturing and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB. There the question was, whether conversion of raw fish into tinned fish constitutes a manufacturing activity and not whether the income derived there from is an income…

M/S Wipro Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…oducts and it falls within the first degree and benefit was extended. 101. However, the learned Counsel for the revenue relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GITWAKO FARMA (I) (P) LIMITED [(2011) 332 ITR 471] where it was held that, converting raw fish into tinned fish did not amount to manufacturing and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB. There the question was, whether conversion of raw fish into tinned fish constitutes a manufacturing activity and not whether the income derived there from is an income…

CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT (332 ITR 471) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax