Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 2(29BA), Section 250(4), Section 271(1)(c), Section 80-IC.

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (251 ITR 323)

Q: What is Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. authority for?

The transformation of bulk powder into regulated, consumable capsules constitutes manufacturing under the definition provided in various statutes, qualifying for associated tax benefits and deductions.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (251 ITR 323), spanning 2009 to 2025.

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…cer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that if this Tribunal wants to verify whether the product or the article produced by the assessee is different from the raw material having the different market value and which cannot be reconverted into the raw material, this Tribunal can verify the same by visiting the ITA No. 1962-…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…cer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that if this Tribunal wants to verify whether the product or the article produced by the assessee is different from the raw material having the different market value and which cannot be reconverted into the raw material, this Tribunal can verify the same by visiting the ITA No. 1962-…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…cer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that if this Tribunal wants to verify whether the product or the article produced by the assessee is different from the raw material having the different market value and which cannot be reconverted into the raw material, this Tribunal can verify the same by visiting the ITA No. 1962-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shyam Sunder Khemka, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6059/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 801CSection 80ISection 80lSection 8B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6059/DEL/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VS. M/S SHYAM SUNDER KHEMKA NEW DELHI E-292, SARITA VIHAR, DELHI (PAN: AANPK9254H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 25.8.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds raised in t…

ACIT, Circle - 41, Kolkata vs. M/S. Anmol Textiles, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2031/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2031/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-41, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anmol Textiles [Pan: Aadfn 4059 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate

Section 10BSection 133ASection 14Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2031/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-41, Kolkata -vs- M/s Anmol Textiles [PAN: AADFN 4059 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT For the Respondent : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Date of Hearing : 04.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Kolkata (in short the ld CITA) in Appea…

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 206CSection 206C(1)

…the timber into sawn timber. Later the said sawn timber is sold by the assessee in its trading activity. 6.2. We also find that the term ‘manufacture’ is not defined in the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 323 (SC) had held that :- “… The word ‘manufacture’ has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word ‘manufacture’ has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qu…

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 97/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 206CSection 206C(1)

…the timber into sawn timber. Later the said sawn timber is sold by the assessee in its trading activity. 6.2. We also find that the term ‘manufacture’ is not defined in the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 323 (SC) had held that :- “… The word ‘manufacture’ has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word ‘manufacture’ has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qu…

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 96/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 206CSection 206C(1)

…the timber into sawn timber. Later the said sawn timber is sold by the assessee in its trading activity. 6.2. We also find that the term ‘manufacture’ is not defined in the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 323 (SC) had held that :- “… The word ‘manufacture’ has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word ‘manufacture’ has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qu…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 872/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…is respectfully submitted that various other decisions dealing with the meaning of the expression ‘manufacture / production’, e.g. Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. vs State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC) – splitting of mica, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323, 327-328 (SC) – making coffee beans from raw berries held to be a manufacturing activity, Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) – case of Ship breaking, India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 208 ITR 98 (SC) – conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls of different sizes, CIT vs Oracle Software…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…is respectfully submitted that various other decisions dealing with the meaning of the expression ‘manufacture / production’, e.g. Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. vs State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC) – splitting of mica, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323, 327-328 (SC) – making coffee beans from raw berries held to be a manufacturing activity, Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) – case of Ship breaking, India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 208 ITR 98 (SC) – conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls of different sizes, CIT vs Oracle Software…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…is respectfully submitted that various other decisions dealing with the meaning of the expression ‘manufacture / production’, e.g. Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. vs State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC) – splitting of mica, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323, 327-328 (SC) – making coffee beans from raw berries held to be a manufacturing activity, Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) – case of Ship breaking, India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 208 ITR 98 (SC) – conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls of different sizes, CIT vs Oracle Software…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…is respectfully submitted that various other decisions dealing with the meaning of the expression ‘manufacture / production’, e.g. Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. vs State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC) – splitting of mica, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323, 327-328 (SC) – making coffee beans from raw berries held to be a manufacturing activity, Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) – case of Ship breaking, India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 208 ITR 98 (SC) – conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls of different sizes, CIT vs Oracle Software…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shriram Chits

Appeal is allowed

RP/42/2017HC Karnataka16 Jun 2017

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260

…n binary code and it is intangible. It can be used only when loaded onto a compatible hardware. Therefore, in our view, hardware becomes an integral part of the exported commodity. 11 (2001 251 ITR 323 (SC) I.T.A No.42/2017 18 (f) Puttur Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT12 In this case, this Court was considering the activity involving in a LPG bottling plant and has held that once the manufactur…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Print Arts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 550/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 550/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mehta Print Arts Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-6(1), E-27, Basement, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco8042K Assessee By : Sh. Pranshu Goel, Ca & Ms. Priyanka Mongia, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…article or thing. 5. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 253 CTR 260 (Del.) " Kadarkarai V CWT (1988) 176 ITR 121, (Mad. HC) " Empire Industries Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 846 (SC) " Aspinwall Vs CIT 251 ITR 323 (SC) " CIT Vs Commercial Law of India 107 ITR 822 " CIT Vs Datacons 155 ITR 66 " CIT Vs Oswal 223 ITGR 735 " CIT Vs Computterised Accounting 235 ITR 502 " CIT Vs Technotive Eastern 255 ITR 253 " CIT Vs Oracle Software India (SC) CA No. 235/2010 @ SLP(C) No. 4719/2008 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed tha…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…the relevant Finance Acts, the question being whether the assessees were industrial companies - they do contain observations which tend to support the stand of the revenue. 12.2 Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) held that in the absence of a definition of word ‘manufacture’ it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combination whether by hand labour or machines. If the change mad…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…the relevant Finance Acts, the question being whether the assessees were industrial companies - they do contain observations which tend to support the stand of the revenue. 12.2 Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) held that in the absence of a definition of word ‘manufacture’ it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combination whether by hand labour or machines. If the change mad…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…the relevant Finance Acts, the question being whether the assessees were industrial companies - they do contain observations which tend to support the stand of the revenue. 12.2 Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) held that in the absence of a definition of word ‘manufacture’ it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combination whether by hand labour or machines. If the change mad…

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6436/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6436 & 6437/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems, Dy. Cit-16(3), बनाम/ 101, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai M. P. Marg, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb 2302 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Sandeep Goel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2006-07 & 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) & 143 R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common Grievance In Both The Years Pertain To Decline Of Claim Of Additional Depreciation. In The A.Y. 2006-07, Scrutiny Assessment Was Framed U/S.143(3), Wherein After Calling Details Of Plant & Machinery So Installed During The Year, The Assessing Officer Has Allowed The Assessee’S Claim Of Additional Deprecation. Thereafter The (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems Vs. Dy. Cit Assessment Was Reopended On The Plea That As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 Itr 307 (Sc), Cutting & Polishing Of Diamonds Did Not Amount To Manufacture/Production. Accordingly, Additional Deprecation Was Disallowed & The Order Of Ao Was Confirmed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel

Section 143(3)Section 80

…anges or converts into a distinct article having different name, characteristic, use, etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has always opined to examine the process involved for manufacturing of a product in question. In case of Aspin Wall & Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC), the Apex Court held that in the absence of a definition of the word “manufacture” it has to be given a meaning as it is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning, the production of article for use from raw material or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labo…

Star India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T.-Range311(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6332/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2003-2004

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus Kaka & Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92

…account, apparently, the business of the assessee is that of a hotel, which is a trading activity and not that of an industrial undertaking.' Resultantly the benefit of deduction was denied. 21. In Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 68 : (2001) 251 ITR 323 (SC), their Lordships were concerned with the question of granting investment allowance, for which one of the prerequisite conditions as per s. 32A was that the industrial undertaking should be engaged inter alia in the manufacturing. It was noticed that the word "manufacture" was not defined in the IT Act. In such circumstances it was held that…

ITO(TDS), WD-58(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 249/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared

Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)

…he timber into sawn timber. Later the said sawn timber is sold by the assessee in its trading activity. 6.2. We also find that the term ‘manufacture’ is not defined in the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 323 (SC) had held that :- “… The word ‘manufacture’ has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word ‘manufacture’ has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, q…

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.

What is Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shyam Sunder Khemka, Delhi

ACIT, Circle - 41, Kolkata vs. M/S. Anmol Textiles, Kolkata

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-58(4), Kolkata

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shriram Chits

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Print Arts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

Star India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T.-Range311(1), Mumbai

ITO(TDS), WD-58(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal., Kolkata