Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers

46 STC 63Supreme Court of India1980#4527 most cited

What is Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers authority for?

Processing of pineapple into pineapple slices, jam, squash, or juice is not considered "manufacture" if the product retains its original identity and character in the trade. The key test is whether the resulting article is regarded in the trade as a distinct and new commodity.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Dy. CST (Law) · Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers · manufacture · processing · pineapple slices · pineapple jam · pineapple squash · pineapple juice · original identity · trade test · section 10B · section 144 · section 145 · section 147 · section 80HHC · section 148 · section 2(29BA) · section 10B(9A)

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 144Section 145Section 147Section 80HHCSection 148Section 2(29BA)Section 10B(9A)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)export oriented unitconvertible foreign exchangespeculation losssection 80jsection 10brejection of books of accountsection 145section 56section 80ifirst appealspeaking order

Judgments citing Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers

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

…onnotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The meaning of the expression 'manufacture' was considered by this Court in Dy. CST v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 among other decisions. In the said decision, the test evolved for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is, whether the commodity which is subjected to the ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 18 of 72 process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognised in the trade…

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)

…manufacturing activity. … ” 5 ITA Nos.249-253 & CO.No.39/Kol/2013-B-AM Sri Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal 6.3. We find that the Learned CIT(A) had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy CIT vs Pio Food Packers reported in 46 STC 63 SC, that :- Further, in the case of State of Orissa vs Patel Mills (37 STC 392 Ori) held that purchasing logs or timber, sawing them into planks , sleepers , etc., amount to manufacture. Hence it could be safely concluded that the timber is different from sawn timber and hence the provisions of section 206C of the Act would not be applicable to t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Udupi vs. Sri Ashok M Shetty, Udupi

In the result, the revenue’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 1436/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George, K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 2

…the decisions of (i) Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliable Rock Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [49 STC 111 ( Kar )]; and (ii) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Sales-tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, the earlier Bench has recorded its findings as under: “15. (on page 14)…………….According to us, more appropriate and relevant decision is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat reported in 245 ITR 830 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of mining of lime stone and marble blocks and therea…

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

…the word ‘manufacture’. While every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The meaning of the expression ‘manufacture’ was considered by this Court in Deputy CST V. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, among other decisions. In the said decision, the test evolved for determining whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. Pathak J, as he then was, stated the test in the following words (at…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gitwako Farms (I) P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/740/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 80Section 80I

…ies here.” 16. Recently, this Court had the occasion to consider a similar issue in STR 12/2002 and STR 4/2003 decided on 24th January, 2011. In the said case, a reference was made to the case of Board of Revenue Taxes, Ernakulam v. Pio Foods Packers, 46 STC 63 (SC). Though this case was under the Sales Tax Act, the question regarding manufacturing came to be considered. The case of Pio Foods Packers (supra) related to pineapple fruits which were processed into pineapple slices. It was held that though it has undergone a degree of processing, it must be regarded as still retaining its original…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gitwako Farms (I) P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 740 / 2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 80Section 80I

…ies here.” 16. Recently, this Court had the occasion to consider a similar issue in STR 12/2002 and STR 4/2003 decided on 24th January, 2011. In the said case, a reference was made to the case of Board of Revenue Taxes, Ernakulam v. Pio Foods Packers, 46 STC 63 (SC). Though this case was under the Sales Tax Act, the question regarding manufacturing came to be considered. The case of Pio Foods Packers (supra) related to pineapple fruits which were processed into pineapple slices. It was held that though it has undergone a degree of processing, it must be regarded as still retaining its original…