Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

3 SCC 314Supreme Court of India1985#3136 most cited

What is Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For an activity to be considered 'manufacture', it must result in a transformation where a new and different article emerges with a distinctive name, character, or use.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India · manufacture · new article · distinctive character · transformation · business activity · section 80-IA · section 80-IC · section 2(29BA)

Also reported as

162 ITR 846

Sections most often in play

Section 80-IA(8)/(10)Section 80-ICSection 2(29BA)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 32asection 80icsection 80ichildsection 32section 80transfersection 15companyindiabusiness

Judgments citing Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1950/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as such from that point of view, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 3 SCC 314). 8. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kores India Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 1 SCC 385 in the background of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Excise Act) and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Excise Rules') and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act). The stand of the revenue was that it amounted to "manufacture ",…

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1948/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as such from that point of view, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 3 SCC 314). 8. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kores India Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 1 SCC 385 in the background of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Excise Act) and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Excise Rules') and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act). The stand of the revenue was that it amounted to "manufacture ",…

M/S.Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1947/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as such from that point of view, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 3 SCC 314). 8. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kores India Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 1 SCC 385 in the background of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Excise Act) and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Excise Rules') and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act). The stand of the revenue was that it amounted to "manufacture ",…

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1946/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as such from that point of view, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 3 SCC 314). 8. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kores India Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 1 SCC 385 in the background of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Excise Act) and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Excise Rules') and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act). The stand of the revenue was that it amounted to "manufacture ",…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd

ITA/2/2023HC Rajasthan07 Jan 2025

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Commissioner of Customs vs. M/S Canon India Private Limited

R.P.(C) No.-000400 - 2021Supreme Court07 Nov 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

…the defect or lacuna resulting in the validation of any act held invalid by a competent court, the act may become valid, if the validating law is lawfully enacted. 161. This Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 314 observed that: “51. In the view we have taken of the expression “manufacture”, the concept of process being embodied in certain situation in the idea of manufacture, the impugned legislation is only making “small repairs” and that is a permissible mode of legislation. In 73rd vol. of Harvard Law Review p. 692 at p. 795, it has been stated as…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant

ITA/5/2024HC Rajasthan24 Jul 2024

Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,KULDEEP MATHUR

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ous customers. In case where services are provided by Indian telecom operator like Bharti Airtel in India and the services outside India are provided by the assessee, it 24 1989 SCC OnLine AP 414 25 (2002) 3 SCC 314 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:24.07.2024 19:47:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2022 & connected matters Page 61 of 149 enters into One Stop Shopping Services Agreement('OSS') with Bharti Airtel or any other Indian telecom operator, to facilitate single billing facility to the cu…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

ITA/206/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ous customers. In case where services are provided by Indian telecom operator like Bharti Airtel in India and the services outside India are provided by the assessee, it 24 1989 SCC OnLine AP 414 25 (2002) 3 SCC 314 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:24.07.2024 19:47:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2022 & connected matters Page 61 of 149 enters into One Stop Shopping Services Agreement('OSS') with Bharti Airtel or any other Indian telecom operator, to facilitate single billing facility to the cu…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

ITA/61/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ous customers. In case where services are provided by Indian telecom operator like Bharti Airtel in India and the services outside India are provided by the assessee, it 24 1989 SCC OnLine AP 414 25 (2002) 3 SCC 314 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:24.07.2024 19:47:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2022 & connected matters Page 61 of 149 enters into One Stop Shopping Services Agreement('OSS') with Bharti Airtel or any other Indian telecom operator, to facilitate single billing facility to the cu…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

ITA/55/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ous customers. In case where services are provided by Indian telecom operator like Bharti Airtel in India and the services outside India are provided by the assessee, it 24 1989 SCC OnLine AP 414 25 (2002) 3 SCC 314 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:24.07.2024 19:47:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2022 & connected matters Page 61 of 149 enters into One Stop Shopping Services Agreement('OSS') with Bharti Airtel or any other Indian telecom operator, to facilitate single billing facility to the cu…

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

…a) ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (2000) 1 SCC 549 xi) UOI Vs. DCM (1963) AIR 1963 SC 791 xii) Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M/s P10 Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, AIR 1980 SC 1227. xiii) Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 xiv) Ujjar Prints Vs. UOI (1989) 179 ITR 317 27. That Ld. AO in view of the above judgments has held as follows: “Hence, in view of above findings of the Hon'ble Courts, it is beyond doubt that the business activity carried on by the assessee firm M/s. Asha Tecnologies, does not tantamount to manufacturing or assembling. None of the prerequisit…

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

…a) ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (2000) 1 SCC 549 xi) UOI Vs. DCM (1963) AIR 1963 SC 791 xii) Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M/s P10 Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, AIR 1980 SC 1227. xiii) Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 xiv) Ujjar Prints Vs. UOI (1989) 179 ITR 317 27. That Ld. AO in view of the above judgments has held as follows: “Hence, in view of above findings of the Hon'ble Courts, it is beyond doubt that the business activity carried on by the assessee firm M/s. Asha Tecnologies, does not tantamount to manufacturing or assembling. None of the prerequisit…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Shri Gulab Singh Bhandari

ITA/7/2024HC Rajasthan23 Apr 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MUNNURI LAXMAN

Principal Commnr of Income Tax-1, Khurdha vs. Mamata Mohapatra

ITA/5/2024HC Orissa12 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2359/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69ASection 6A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Vivek Mehrotra V. DCIT – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAHPM4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19th Floor Mumbai -400020 A…

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

…Pr. Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 53 (Kar.) xxviii) Kamal Biscuit Factory vs. CST (1985) 60 STC 344 (Allh.) xxix) Dy. CST vs. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63 xxx) South Bihar Sugar Mills vs. UOI (1978) ELT (J) 3 xxxi) Empire Industries Ltd. vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 (SC) xxxii) CIT vs. Lucky Mineral Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 245 19. The Ld. DR further submitted that as regards the claim of the assessee that deduction allowed in earlier years cannot be denied in subsequent year, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to profit derived from eligible units has been allowed by Revenue till A.Y…

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

…Pr. Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 53 (Kar.) xxviii) Kamal Biscuit Factory vs. CST (1985) 60 STC 344 (Allh.) xxix) Dy. CST vs. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63 xxx) South Bihar Sugar Mills vs. UOI (1978) ELT (J) 3 xxxi) Empire Industries Ltd. vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 (SC) xxxii) CIT vs. Lucky Mineral Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 245 19. The Ld. DR further submitted that as regards the claim of the assessee that deduction allowed in earlier years cannot be denied in subsequent year, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to profit derived from eligible units has been allowed by Revenue till A.Y…

ITO, Dehradun vs. M/S. Rudra Woodpack Pvt. Ltd., Uttrakhand

Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is therefore, dismissed

ITA 71/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. K.N.Chary & Sh. O.P. Meenaita No.71/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

…cannot be said that the same amounted to assembling and not manufacturing. 20. Finally, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held in CIT Vs. Darshak Ltd. 247 ITR 489 (2001) “The Supreme Court in Empire Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 162 ITR 846 (SC) has held that 7 "manufacture" would include processes like bleaching mercerising, dyeing, printing, waterproofing, rubberising, shrink- proofing, grease-resisting, etc. It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court that the word "manufacture" is to be understood in a wider sense. Manufacture would employ a change and a transformation.…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…342 (Del.) and CIT vs O.E. N. India Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 554 (Kerala). We further note that the law relating to compulsory retirement, which has been crystallized into definite principles, has been summarized in State of Gujarat vs Umedhbhai M. Patel (2010) 3 SCC 314, 320. 2.5. In the light above proposition of law, now, we shall analyze various case laws whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act can be reopened merely on the basis of “change of opinion”. The expression “change of opinion” postulates formation of opinion and then a change thereof. In the context of assessment ITA. No.48…