Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT v. JD Farms

237 ITR 59Supreme Court of India1999#7941 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2021.

Judgments citing Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT v. JD Farms

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 6714/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6714/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6715/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. Cit, Vs Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Special Range-4, Plot No. 4, Igl Bhawan, Sector-9, New Delhi R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5076R Assessee By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6714/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 6715/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. CIT, Vs Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Special Range-4, Plot No. 4, IGL Bhawan, Sector-9, New Delhi R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI5076R Assessee by : Sh. Rajat Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Memb…

INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6489/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6489/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, Plot No. 4, Igl Bhawan, Special Range-4, Sector-9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi New Delhi-110022 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5076R Assessee By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6489/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, Plot No. 4, IGL Bhawan, Special Range-4, Sector-9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi New Delhi-110022 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI5076R Assessee by : Sh. Rajat Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the ass…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Cynamid India Ltd.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283…

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Cynamid India Ltd.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283…

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, with Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr.DR’s)
Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 80I

…AR of the assessee submits that the AO disallowed the deduction under section 80IB holding that the assessee’s activity did not amount to ‘manufacture’ or ‘production’ of goods by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Relish Foods (237 ITR 59). The ld. AR further submits that deduction under 80IB(v) is available to assessee on Profit & Gain derived from an Industrial Undertaking situated in backward area/district specified in the notification, interalia, that it manufactures or produce an article of things, not being article of things specified in Eleventh Schedule. The assessee ful…

ITO 33 (3) (4), MUMBAI vs. SUDARSHAN R. KHARBANDA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Ahdpk9148D

Section 80I

…ks was not held to be industrial undertaking and thus not entitled to deduction in CIT vs Venkateshawara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT vs JD Farms (2010) 187 taxman 151 (Del.) g) In CIT vs Relish Foods 237 ITR 59 (SC) held that processing of Shrimps could not be said to be manufacturing or production. h) Likewise in Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs ACIT 329 ITR 67 (Ker.) held that fish processing does not amount to manufacture or production. i) Likewise in CIT vs Gitwako Pharma (I.)(P) Ltd. (2011) 10 taxman.com 261 (Del.) held that converting raw fish into ti…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, THANE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2033/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 Pan – Afypk0221L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Tikekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ks was not held to be industrial undertaking and thus not entitled to deduction in CIT vs Venkateshawara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT vs JD Farms (2010) 187 taxman 151 (Del.) g) In CIT vs Relish Foods 237 ITR 59 (SC) held that processing of Shrimps could not be said to be manufacturing or production. h) Likewise in Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs ACIT 329 ITR 67 (Ker.) held that fish processing does not amount to manufacture or production. i) Likewise in CIT vs Gitwako Pharma (I.)(P) Ltd. (2011) 10 taxman.com 261 (Del.) held that converting raw fish into ti…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…ks was not held to be industrial undertaking and thus not entitled to deduction in CIT vs Venkateshawara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT vs JD Farms (2010) 187 taxman 151 (Del.) g) In CIT vs Relish Foods 237 ITR 59 (SC) held that processing of Shrimps could not be said to be manufacturing or production. h) Likewise in Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs ACIT 329 ITR 67 (Ker.) held that fish processing does not amount to manufacture or production. i) Likewise in CIT vs Gitwako Pharma (I.)(P) Ltd. (2011) 10 taxman.com 261 (Del.) held that converting raw fish into ti…

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. ULHAS GOPAL KARLE, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2369/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…ks was not held to be industrial undertaking and thus not entitled to deduction in CIT vs Venkateshawara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 174 (SC), Indian Poultry vs CIT 116 Taxman 493 (SC) and CIT vs JD Farms (2010) 187 taxman 151 (Del.) g) In CIT vs Relish Foods 237 ITR 59 (SC) held that processing of Shrimps could not be said to be manufacturing or production. h) Likewise in Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs ACIT 329 ITR 67 (Ker.) held that fish processing does not amount to manufacture or production. i) Likewise in CIT vs Gitwako Pharma (I.)(P) Ltd. (2011) 10 taxman.com 261 (Del.) held that converting raw fish into ti…

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

…supra) and CIT v. Bharath Sea Foods of the Kerala High Court related to prawns and fish respectively are no longer holding field on the subject in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Relish Foods, 237 ITR 59 (SC). In this case the undermentioned findings of Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 68 STC 239, were approved by Supreme Court that: “the processed or frozen shrimps and prawns are commercially regarded as the same commodity as raw shrimps and prawns. When raw shrimps and prawns are subjected to the process of cutting of…

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

…supra) and CIT v. Bharath Sea Foods of the Kerala High Court related to prawns and fish respectively are no longer holding field on the subject in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Relish Foods, 237 ITR 59 (SC). In this case the undermentioned findings of Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 68 STC 239, were approved by Supreme Court that: “the processed or frozen shrimps and prawns are commercially regarded as the same commodity as raw shrimps and prawns. When raw shrimps and prawns are subjected to the process of cutting of…

C.I.T vs. J.D.FARMS

ITA - 755 / 2007HC Delhi08 Sept 2009
Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…tamount to manufacture." 10.Another judgment which would of relevance and was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue is again the judgment of ![](_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg) the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Relish Foods, 237 ITR 59. In that case the activity of the assessee therein included buying shrimps, peeling them and freezing them. The Supreme Court held that it did not involve any production or manufacture. We may, however, hasten to add that while doing so the Supreme Court had commented that there was no other material on record which could indicate a to what was do…

C.I.T vs. J.D.FARMS

ITA - 915 / 2007HC Delhi08 Sept 2009
Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…tamount to manufacture." 10.Another judgment which would of relevance and was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue is again the judgment of ![](_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg) the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Relish Foods, 237 ITR 59. In that case the activity of the assessee therein included buying shrimps, peeling them and freezing them. The Supreme Court held that it did not involve any production or manufacture. We may, however, hasten to add that while doing so the Supreme Court had commented that there was no other material on record which could indicate a to what was do…

C.I.T vs. J.D.FARMS

ITA - 740 / 2007HC Delhi08 Sept 2009
Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80H

…t to manufacture." 10.Another judgment which would of relevance and was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue is again the judgment of ٠ 14 ![](_page_9_Picture_1.jpeg) the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Relish Foods, 237 ITR 59. In that case the activity of the assessee therein included buying shrimps, peeling them and freezing them. The Supreme Court held that it did not involve any production or manufacture. We may, however, hasten to add that while doing so the Supreme Court had commented that there was no other material on record which could indicate a to what was do…