Graphic Company India Limited v. Collector of Customs

1 SCC 549Reported decision2000#7327 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2024.

Judgments citing Graphic Company India Limited v. Collector of Customs

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…ve chassis is made, retain their individual identity in the whole article which is thus manufactured or produced." 10. We may also gainfully refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gramophone company (I) Limited v. Collector of Customs, (2000) 1 SCC 549 and UOI v. Delhi Cloth & General Mils Co.Limited, (1963) (SUPP) SCR 586 wherein the expression 'manufacture' has been understood to mean transformation of the goods into a new commodity commercially distinct and separate having its own character, use and name whether it be the result of one or several processes. 11. Considered in this light, factua…

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 85/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

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 Manufacturing Co. 2001 (249) ITR 307 vii) Asprin Wall & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2001 (251) ITR 323 viii) CIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Chnder Sharma 308 ITR 222 (2009) P&H ix) Computer Graphics case of Apex Court x) Gramphone Co. (India) 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 vi…

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

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

…310 137. (1990) 4 SCC 366 138. AIR 1956 SC 246 139. AIR 1963 SC 1241 140. AIR 1957 SC 397 141. (1996) 1 SCC 1 142. (2012) 3 SCC 1 143. (2012) 10 SCC 1 144. (1987) 2 SCC 295 145. (2013) 12 SCC 631 146. (1998) 1 SCC 226 147. (1974) 1 SCC 549 Coram : Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. This Writ Petition is filed in public interest seeking a writ, order or direction declaring the Uttarakhand Former Chief Ministers Facility (Residential and other facilities) Act, 2019 (for short “Act 5 of 2020”) as arbitrary, illegal and ul…

CIT-7

ITA/190/2015HC Delhi09 Dec 2015

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Limited (1998) 2 SCC 32 a two-fold test was laid down. It was held that printing on bottles did not amount to manufacture. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Gramophone Co. of India v. Collector of Customs (2000) 1 SCC 549 in which it was held that processing would not qualify as 'manufacture'. The word ‘manufacture’ had to be interpreted “in the context of the object and the language used in the section.” Reliance was also placed on the decisions in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works (1991) 4 SCC 473, Collector of Central Exci…

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

ITA/551/2013HC Delhi05 Feb 2015

Section 10B

…ITA 551/2013 & 553/2013 Page 1 of 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 551/2013 and 553/2013 Reserved on: 15th December, 2014 % Date of Decision: 5th February, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax – I ....Appellant Through Mr. N.P.Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing counsel and Mr. Juoy James, Advocate. Versus M/s AAR ESS EXIM PVT. LTD. …Respondent Throug…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

ITA/14/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…heir client. 7. Addressing the question whether the assessee could be said to have involved herself in "manufacture" or "produced" any goods or articles, the ITAT relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Graphic Company India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2001] 1 SCC 549; CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited AIR 1963 SC 791 and CIT vs. Lovesh Jain 204 Taxman 134(Del) and held as follows: 2015:DHC:553-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 6 "17. In the instant case we find that the appellant after collecting raw data and pictures has utilized its expert…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

ITA/13/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…heir client. 7. Addressing the question whether the assessee could be said to have involved herself in "manufacture" or "produced" any goods or articles, the ITAT relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Graphic Company India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2001] 1 SCC 549; CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited AIR 1963 SC 791 and CIT vs. Lovesh Jain 204 Taxman 134(Del) and held as follows: 2015:DHC:552-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 6 "17. In the instant case we find that the appellant after collecting raw data and pictures has utilized its expert…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

ITA/15/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…heir client. 7. Addressing the question whether the assessee could be said to have involved herself in "manufacture" or "produced" any goods or articles, the ITAT relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Graphic Company India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2001] 1 SCC 549; CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited AIR 1963 SC 791 and CIT vs. Lovesh Jain 204 Taxman 134(Del) and held as follows: 2015:DHC:548-DB ITA 13/2015 TO 15/2015 Page 6 "17. In the instant case we find that the appellant after collecting raw data and pictures has utilized its expert…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2002HC Delhi22 Dec 2014

Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 88H

…ation has been accepted and applied with some moderation/clarification in several decisions, keeping in view the context in which the word “manufacture” has been used. The Supreme Court in Graphic Company India Limited versus Collector of Customs, (2001) 1 SCC 549 and Union of India versus Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, AIR 1963 SC 791 has held that manufacture has to be understood to mean transformation of goods into a new commodity commercially distinct and separate, and having its own character, use and name whether it be the result of one or several processes. However, every change…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

ITTA/441/2013HC Telangana24 Sept 2013

…ge 31 of 66 limit. (ii) In the absence of any guidelines on how to exercise such power, it can become arbitrary and would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Punjab v. Khan Chand (1974) 1 SCC 549 and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335 and also to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. CTO (1984) 55 SCT 292 (AP) and Kerala High Court in Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala 1995 (1) ILR 92 (Ker) . (iii) Section 28 (11) would be applicable only in respect of short-levy or non-levy or errone…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/1223/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2011

Section 10ASection 260A

…has been accepted and applied with some moderation/clarification in several decisions, keeping in view the context in which the word “manufacture” has been used. The Supreme Court in Graphic Company India Limited versus Collector of Customs, (2001) 1 SCC 549 and Union of India versus Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, AIR 1963 SC 791 has held that manufacture has to be understood to mean transformation of goods into a new commodity commercially distinct and separate, and having its own character, use and name whether it be the result of one or several processes. However, every change…

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007

For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies

Section 35B

…Prints & Others (II) v. Union of India & Others (1989) 3 SCC 488 and M/s Saraswati Sugar Mills & Others v. Haryana State Board & Others (1992) 1 SCC 418 took the same view. 44. In Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (2000) 1 SCC 549, this Court examined earlier cases and held that \023manufacture\024 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16 implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a ne…

HINDUSTAN POLES CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

Appeals are allowed and show cause

C.A. No.-005572-005573 - 2000Supreme Court27 Mar 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

Section 2

…ary connotation, signifies emergence of new and different goods as http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10 understood in relevant commercial circles. In Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta \026 (2000) 1 SCC 549, this Court examined earlier cases of this Court and held that ’Manufacture’ implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinct…