ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

320 ITR 79Supreme Court of India2010#1362 most cited

What is ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

For the purpose of claiming deductions under sections like 10B, 80IC, 80HHC, 80J, and 80I, a process must amount to 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(29BA), involving genuine value addition or chemical transformation.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Arihant Tiles & Marbles · section 2(29BA) · definition of manufacture · value addition · industrial undertaking · section 10B · section 80IC · section 80HHC · processing activity · income tax deductions

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 2(29BA)Section 10BSection 144Section 145Section 148Section 80-ICSection 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)export oriented unitconvertible foreign exchangespeculation losssection 80jsection 80icsection 10bsection 250(4)section 80irejection of books of accountsection 145section 56

Judgments citing ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

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

…ould also be employed for this Act, was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 22 :: Pvt. Ltd (320 ITR 79) and it was answered in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings as noted by us are as under: “20. Before concluding, we would like to make one observation. If the contention of the Department is to be accepted, namely that the activity undertaken by the respondents herein is not a manufacture, then, it would have serious revenue consequenc…

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

…ould also be employed for this Act, was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 22 :: Pvt. Ltd (320 ITR 79) and it was answered in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings as noted by us are as under: “20. Before concluding, we would like to make one observation. If the contention of the Department is to be accepted, namely that the activity undertaken by the respondents herein is not a manufacture, then, it would have serious revenue consequenc…

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

…ould also be employed for this Act, was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 22 :: Pvt. Ltd (320 ITR 79) and it was answered in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings as noted by us are as under: “20. Before concluding, we would like to make one observation. If the contention of the Department is to be accepted, namely that the activity undertaken by the respondents herein is not a manufacture, then, it would have serious revenue consequenc…

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

…ould also be employed for this Act, was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles ITA Nos.1946-1950/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 22 :: Pvt. Ltd (320 ITR 79) and it was answered in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings as noted by us are as under: “20. Before concluding, we would like to make one observation. If the contention of the Department is to be accepted, namely that the activity undertaken by the respondents herein is not a manufacture, then, it would have serious revenue consequenc…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nSmt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

…al interpretations including:\n• Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)\n188 ELT 467 (SC)\n• Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)\n• India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385\n• Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)\n7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the\nappeal of the assessee is required to be allowed.\n8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A),\nsubmitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom\npowder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation.\n8.…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 472/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

…judicial interpretations including: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)  188 ELT 467 (SC) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)  India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385  Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)  7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A), submitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom powder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation. 8.1…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 471/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

…judicial interpretations including: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)  188 ELT 467 (SC) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)  India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385  Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)  7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A), submitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom powder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation. 8.1…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: \nSmt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

…al interpretations including:\n• Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)\n188 ELT 467 (SC)\n• Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)\n• India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385\n• Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)\n7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the\nappeal of the assessee is required to be allowed.\n8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A),\nsubmitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom\npowder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation.\n8.…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: \nSmt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

…al interpretations including:\n• Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)\n188 ELT 467 (SC)\n• Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)\n• India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385\n• Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)\n7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the\nappeal of the assessee is required to be allowed.\n8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A),\nsubmitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom\npowder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation.\n8.…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 468/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

…judicial interpretations including: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)  188 ELT 467 (SC) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)  India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385  Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)  7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A), submitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom powder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation. 8.1…

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 467/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

…al interpretations including:\n• Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2005)\n188 ELT 467 (SC)\n• Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC)\n• India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2008] 17 SCC 385\n• Arihant Tiles & Marbles v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC)\n7.5 On the basis of the above said submission it was submitted that the\nappeal of the assessee is required to be allowed.\n8. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO and CIT(A),\nsubmitting that the assessee was merely filling pre-processed mushroom\npowder into capsules with no value addition or chemical transformation.\n8.…

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 755/MUM/2012[B]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3409/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

DCIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJILAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5539/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6523/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4988/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4987/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6537/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

…ourt in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to supra, the issue of 'manufacture or production' has undergone substantial debate. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 / 186 Taxman 439 has held once excise duty is being paid it would not be possible to hold that there was no manufacturing involved. He drew our attention to Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pickles are classified under the heading 20.01 vide M. F.(D.R.) F. No. 114/18/86-CX.3, dated 24-3-19…

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

…stitutes "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) (Ker.) whether blending of tea was to be held to be a manufacturing activity. 6.20 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is held that the assessee has undertaken manufacturing / production activity a…

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5