What is Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT authority for?

The activity of converting jumbo rolls of photographic films into smaller flats and rolls of desired sizes constitutes 'manufacture'. This principle clarifies that 'manufacture' includes processes that transform raw or prepared materials into articles for use by changing their form or utility.

How many judgments cite Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT (308 ITR 98), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80-IA(8)/(10), Section 80-IC, Section 2(29BA).

Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT (308 ITR 98)

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

…rodeos which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. " ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 :: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies vs. 16. CIT (308 ITR 98) had held that, even the activity involving conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes constitutes ‘manufacture’. The relevant findings of the Apex Court having a bearing on the assessee’s case is as follows: "3. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the word "manufacture" has been define…

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

…rodeos which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. " ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 :: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies vs. 16. CIT (308 ITR 98) had held that, even the activity involving conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes constitutes ‘manufacture’. The relevant findings of the Apex Court having a bearing on the assessee’s case is as follows: "3. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the word "manufacture" has been define…

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

…rodeos which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. " ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 :: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies vs. 16. CIT (308 ITR 98) had held that, even the activity involving conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes constitutes ‘manufacture’. The relevant findings of the Apex Court having a bearing on the assessee’s case is as follows: "3. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the word "manufacture" has been define…

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

…rodeos which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. " ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 :: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies vs. 16. CIT (308 ITR 98) had held that, even the activity involving conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes constitutes ‘manufacture’. The relevant findings of the Apex Court having a bearing on the assessee’s case is as follows: "3. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the word "manufacture" has been define…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/s. Hinduja National Power Commissioner of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AABCH2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR. सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing…

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

…Courts, it was held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.80IC: (i). Chowgule & Co P Ltd (1 SCC 623) (SC) wherein it has been held that even blending of iron ore for the purpose of export constitutes "manufacturing" (ii). Indian Cine Agencies (308 ITR 98) (SC) wherein it has been held that the activity of cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes constitutes manufacture / production, (iii). Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd (320 ITR 79) (SC) wherein it has been held that cutting and polishing of marble blocks constitutes manufacturing and (iv). Tata Tea Ltd. (338 ITR 285) (Ke…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)

Section 143(1)

…y Delhi Tribunal on RMC plant in case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd. vs Dy. CIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 (Delhi Trib (copy enclosed); relying on decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and following other judgments in cases of :- i. India Cine Agencies v. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98 (SC) ii. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage v. R. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 iii. CITY. J.B. Kharwar and Sons [1987] 163 TTR 394(Guj) iv. CIT v. Premier Tobacco Packers (P) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 222 (Mad.) v. Singh Engg. Works (P) Ltd.(Supra) (All). 26.4 In support of same relevant bills on which additional depreciation was claimed were submitted at…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi (DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 80I

…td. (which was discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. 5.25 We have also gone through the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Indian Cine Agencies Vs CIT 308 ITR 98. In this case the question before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was: When the assessee was engaged in the activity of cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes, whether such activity undertaken by the assessee was manufacture or production? In this case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court after discussing various cases, the provisions…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) I.T.A. Nos. 1884 & 1885/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata..............................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd...............................................................................Respondent [PAN: AAACI 5573 R] C.O. Nos. 26 & 27-Kol-2020 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 1884 & 1885/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 20…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) I.T.A. Nos. 1884 & 1885/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata..............................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd...............................................................................Respondent [PAN: AAACI 5573 R] C.O. Nos. 26 & 27-Kol-2020 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 1884 & 1885/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 20…

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

…. UOI v. J. G. Glass Industries Ltd.: (1998) 97 ELT 5 (SC) ii. CIT v. Oracle Software India Ltd.: 320 ITR 546 (SC) of the word “manufacture”. The Supreme Court held as under: Kores India Limited vs. CCE: 2004 (174) ELT 7 (SC) India Cine Agencies vs. CIT: 308 ITR 98 ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79/ 227 CTR 513 CIT vs Emptee Poly-Yarn (P) Ltd: 320 ITR 665 (SC) CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd.: 396 ITR 696, Puttur Petro Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 361 ITR 290 Central U.P. Gas Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.224 of 2014 CIT vs. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd.: ITA No. 60 of 2009 Even the pro…

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

…. UOI v. J. G. Glass Industries Ltd.: (1998) 97 ELT 5 (SC) ii. CIT v. Oracle Software India Ltd.: 320 ITR 546 (SC) of the word “manufacture”. The Supreme Court held as under: Kores India Limited vs. CCE: 2004 (174) ELT 7 (SC) India Cine Agencies vs. CIT: 308 ITR 98 ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79/ 227 CTR 513 CIT vs Emptee Poly-Yarn (P) Ltd: 320 ITR 665 (SC) CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd.: 396 ITR 696, Puttur Petro Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 361 ITR 290 Central U.P. Gas Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.224 of 2014 CIT vs. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd.: ITA No. 60 of 2009 Even the pro…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2175/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Ltd. (which was discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. 5.25 We have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Cine Agencies Vs CIT 308 ITR 98. In this case the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was: When the assessee was engaged in the activity of cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes, whether such activity undertaken by the assessee was manufacture or production? In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing various cases, the provisions…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2174/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Ltd. (which was discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. 5.25 We have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Cine Agencies Vs CIT 308 ITR 98. In this case the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was: When the assessee was engaged in the activity of cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes, whether such activity undertaken by the assessee was manufacture or production? In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing various cases, the provisions…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2173/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Ltd. (which was discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. 5.25 We have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Cine Agencies Vs CIT 308 ITR 98. In this case the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was: When the assessee was engaged in the activity of cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes, whether such activity undertaken by the assessee was manufacture or production? In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing various cases, the provisions…