Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT

Sa Packaging, Delhi vs. CIT- XI, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated 30

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi, M/S. Sa Packaging, C/O- Amit Sudershan & Associates, 907- New Delhi 908, 9Th Floor, Klj Tower North, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi Pan : Abhfs3629M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/02/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Original Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer On 25/08/2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.32,53,534/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Subsequently, The Commissioner Of Income Tax Examined The Assessment Records & Observed That The Assessee Did Not Manufacture Any Article Or Thing, Which Is A Prerequisite For Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Accordingly, He Issued A Notice

…Goa Limited (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) wherein it has been held that extraction and processing of iron ore amounted to manufacture. The Hon’ble High Court has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98 (SC) relied upon by the learned AR. In this judgment the Supreme Court has accepted that the meaning of the word ‘production or product’ was vide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into smaller rolls in the desired sizes. 20. In the present case there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is buying jumbo rolls…

M/S Sa Packaging, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sa Packing, Vs. Cit, N-8/B, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Abhfs3629M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, Adv. Department By: Shri Bk Singh, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revisional Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed On 25.3.2013 Has Been Impugned By The Assessee.

…e learned AR invited attention to PB Pg. 108 which explains the manufacturing process. 6 10. It was further submitted that case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 98 (SC). It was further contended that the above judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Delhi Press PatraPrakashan Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 14 (Del) where on similar facts it has been held that printing also included and to be considered as eligible for claiming deduction. It was also submitte…

Sh. Harish Kumar Malhotra, Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 2727/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Harish Kumar Malhotra, Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax-X, 875, Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpm9630R Assessee By : Sh. Satish Khasla, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit, Delhi-X, New Delhi.

…r erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ACIT Vs Asam Dyeing Plants (P.) Ltd. 142 ITD 532(Guawathi) " Zenith Processing Mills Vs CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) " India Cine Agencies Vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98 (SC) 7. In her rival submissions the ld. CIT DR reiterated the observations made by the ld. CIT in the impugned order and further submitted that there was mistake in the audit report which was overlooked by the AO. It was further stated that the Industrial undertaking was not located in the notified area which is mandatory to claim the deduction u…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2957-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2956-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2955-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2959-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Lt

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2957-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2956-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2956-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2955-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

Commissioner of Income Tax

…& Co. (supra) and Sesa Goa Limited (supra) have been followed by the Supreme Court 2013:DHC:2957-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 32 of 45 in the later decision of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2009) 308 ITR 98. In this case the Supreme Court accepted that the meaning of the word “production” or “produce” was wide enough to include conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes and held that the benefits of section 80-I of the Act would be available in respect of an industrial undertaking engaged in such a…

CIT vs. Sadhu Forging Ltd

…e in relation to  raw or untreated crankshafts being subjected to heat treatment, etc., is definitely a "manufacturing activity" entitling it to claim "investment allowance" under S.32A. In the case of India Cine Agencies v. CIT, 308 ITR 98 (SC), the 11. conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes amounts to manufacture or production eligible for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I. In another case titled CIT v. Oracle Software India Ltd., 320 ITR 546 (SC), it was observed that if an operation/process renders commodity or article fit…

CIT vs. Sadhu Forging Ltd

…1 & 351/2011 Page 10 of 12 raw or untreated crankshafts being subjected to heat treatment, etc., is definitely a “manufacturing activity” entitling it to claim “investment allowance” under S.32A. 11. In the case of India Cine Agencies v. CIT, 308 ITR 98 (SC), the conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes amounts to manufacture or production eligible for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I. In another case titled CIT v. Oracle Software India Ltd., 320 ITR 546 (SC), it was observed that if an operation/process renders commodity or article…