Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. P. Devashayam

166 ITR 804High Court1987#6766 most cited

What is Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. P. Devashayam authority for?

An enterprise can be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking if it exhibits systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment, and production of goods. The presence of independent and identifiable units allows for separate treatment.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. P. Devashayam · industrial unit · undertaking · independent unit · identifiable unit · systematic activity · employment of labour and equipment · production of goods

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32(1)(iia)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. P. Devashayam

Mohmedamin Mohmedumar General, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…before the AO on 07.01.2021 and 29.01.2021, ledger account of “shuttle less waterjet looms” and bank statements etc. The ld. AR also filed a paper book of the case laws. He submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. J. B. Kharwar & Sons, 163 ITR 394 (Guj.) held that the process of dying and printing grey cloth would amount to manufacturing of goods for purpose of section 80J of the Act irrespective of fact that grey cloth which is subjected to process of dyeing and printing belongs to assessee or someone else. He submitted that it is not a case of lack of inquiry but may be a case of insuffi…

Saf Yeast Co. P.Ltd., Mumba vs. ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax CC-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCS 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCS…

Dy CIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Saf Yeast Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax CC-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCS 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCS…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Eurobond Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all these appeals are allowed statistical purposes

ITA 6611/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
Section 131Section 80I

…stablishment of an additional industrial undertaking. In this regard he referred to the meaning of industrial undertaking from the decision of the Honourable Kerela High Court in the case P. Alikunju Miscellaneous Application Nazeer Cashew Industries Vs. CIT, 166 ITR 804. 6. Thereafter the AO held as under :- “From the submissions made by the assessee regarding Unit-I and Unit-II during the course of assessment proceedings, as discussed above, the facts that has been brought out by ADIT, Jammu and confessed by Works Manager in his statement under Oath and the discussion on the definition of industrial Undertaking…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 37(1)

…consideration before various courts in various different contexts. These, as we find from the case law cited and referred to the issue, are discussed hereunder: (a) The Kerala High Court in the case of P. Alikunju, M.A. Nazeer Cashew Industries v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 804 : 34 Taxman 169 in 25 ITA NO.5775/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2007-08) & Other 12 files M/s. Trent Ltd., connection with the provisions of Section 54D and Their Lordships observed as under: What then is an 'industrial undertaking’? The Income-tax Act does not define what is 'an industrial undertaking' or what is an 'industrial undertaking'. It has, therefore,…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. the Grand Bhagwati Banquests and Hotels Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2528/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2528/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dcit, M/S. The Grand बनाम/ Circle – 4(1)(2), Bhagwati Banquets Vs. Ahmedabad. & Hotels Ltd., 301, P Circle, Honest Cross Road, S.C. Highway, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 6825 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri T. Sankar Sr. D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R.

For Respondent: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nd Bhagwati Banquets and Hotels Ltd. Asst.Year –2009-10 treating the assessee an Industrial Undertaking. Further we find that this view is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.Alikunju, M.A. Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. It would be pertinent to mention here, the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ship Scrap Traders 251 ITR 806 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under:- “The concept of industrial undertaking need not necessarily be confined to manufacture and production of articles and even in the absence of either of them t…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80I

…and that by these is capable of production of goods independently, the said unit could be classified as a newly established industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HH. Hon'ble Madras High Court in another case CWT vs P. Devasahayam 236 ITR 885, interpreted an industrial undertaking as an undertaking engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. 37. The AO has taken an objection that the power generation unit is a part of a larger undertaking and assessee's power generation undertakings are not independent unit with a distinct name, ad…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1635/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y is independent and identifiable it can be treated as separate industrial unit. CIT(A) relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. P. Devashayam 236 ITR 885, Kharwar (J.B.) & Sons 163 ITR 394 and Nazeer Cashew Industries 166 ITR 804. (d) In the assessee’s case, the three elements of systematic activity, employment of labour and equipment and production of goods are present and therefore the enterprise could be termed as an undertaking or an industrial undertaking. (e) There is no fetter against using of power generated for self consumption - Mumbai ITAT in case of West Co…

Commissioner of Income Tax

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

…ITA 1223/2011, 67/2010 and 458/2010 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1223/2011 Reserved on : 16thNovember, 2011. % Date of Decision : 20th December, 2011. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS LOVLESH JAIN …..Respondent Through Nemo. INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 67/2010 AND 458/2010 Reserved on : 30thNovember, 2011. %…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd vs. C.I.T

ITA/1261/2008HC Delhi30 Oct 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 35

…ITA No. 1261/08, 1278/08, 1287/08 & 1402/08 nsk Page 1 of 16 Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1261 of 2008 ITA No. 1278 of 2008 ITA No. 1287 of 2008 ITA No. 1402 of 2008 % Reserved on : September 17, 2009 Pronounced on : October 30, 2009 Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. . . . Appellant through : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocates VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Respondent through : Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON‟BLE MR. JUS…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-1261/2008HC Delhi30 Oct 2009
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 35

…Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1261 of 2008 ITA No. 1278 of 2008 ITA No. 1287 of 2008 ITA No. 1402 of 2008 % Reserved on : September 17, 2009 Pronounced on : October 30, 2009 Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. . . . Appellant through : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocates VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Respondent through : Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA 1. Whe…

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. P. Devashayam (166 ITR 804) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax