ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

320 ITR 79Supreme Court of India2010#1287 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.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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
Read the full judgment

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. Madhuri Refiners (P) Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT-3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 781/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Madhuri Refiners Dcit, 3(1) Private Ltd., Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1884 C Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(29)(BA)Section 32(1)(iia)

…y various judicial pronouncements; In this regard assesse has place reliance on judgment of the Supreme court in the case of: [i] M/s India Cine Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax madras (3649- 3650 of 2003) [ii] Arihant Tiles and marbles P.Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) [iii] CIT Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (9296 of 2017) Page 6 of 18 Madhuri Refiners P. ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 Xerox copies of above Judgments are annexed – kindly refer page no. 9 to 42 From the perusal of above judgment your honour will find that the legal position is well settled by the Supreme Court with regard the type’s activ…

M/S India Impex, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2858/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. India Impex V. Acit-19(1) Unit No. 4, 1St Floor Matru Mandir Building Brady Glady Plaza Bhatia Hospital Lane 1/447, Senpati Bapat Marg Javji Dadaji Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Grant Road (W) Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aaafi5046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…ated that principles of res jusdicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings as regards the action of the Assessing Officer for income-tax assessment year 2015-16. Further, he placed reliance on the following decisions – (a) Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P.) Ltd 320 ITR 79 (SC) (b) Pressure Piling Co. (India) Pvt Ltd 126 ITR 333 (Bom) (c) Veena Textiles (P) Ltd 40 CTR 233 (Mad) (d) V.N. Enterprises Ltd 439 ITR 624 (Cal) (e) Sultan & Sons Rice Mill 272 ITR 181 (All) 50. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we noticed that from the various papers and documents filed with us, the raw mat…

V.Anantha Kumar, Chamarajanagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-9(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…ms) by the tax authorities. He submitted that the activity of sawing marble blocks into slabs and tiles and polishing the same has been held to be manufacture or production by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P Ltd (2010)(320 ITR 79). Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10B in respect of profits earned on sale of cut and polished granite stones also. Sri V. Anantha Kumar, Chamarajnagar Page 6 of 8 9. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has purchased the granite slabs from the market and the same has been expo…

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

…al vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) (viii) Shree Veer Aromatic Herb Products vs. Income Tax Officer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Lear…

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 context as to whether the definition of 'manufacture or production' employed for levy of Central Excise should also be employed under the Income-tax Act. 1961, as it was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Arihant Tiles & Marbles Ltd (320 ITR 79). We note that in the process of blending of butane & propane which is carried out in scientific manner with use and aid of sophisticated plant & machinery, transformation is brought about and entirely new product by the name LPG is obtained. The said object or product i.e. LPG is known to the trade and commerce by its separate distinctive commerc…

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 context as to whether the definition of 'manufacture or production' employed for levy of Central Excise should also be employed under the Income-tax Act. 1961, as it was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Arihant Tiles & Marbles Ltd (320 ITR 79). We note that in the process of blending of butane & propane which is carried out in scientific manner with use and aid of sophisticated plant & machinery, transformation is brought about and entirely new product by the name LPG is obtained. The said object or product i.e. LPG is known to the trade and commerce by its separate distinctive commerc…

Handy Waterbase India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 422/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 2

…as filed detailed written submissions on the issue 8 I.TA. Nos.672 & 1228/Chny/2018 & 422/Chny/2020 along with plethora of judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 79, which has been reproduced at page No.2 to 25 of ld.CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) are that conversion of dead crab into pasteurized crab meat amounts to manufacture as per definition u/s.2(29BA) of the Act, because the manufacturing starts only after the crab dies i.e., only after the same be…

Handy Waterbase India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 672/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 2

…as filed detailed written submissions on the issue 8 I.TA. Nos.672 & 1228/Chny/2018 & 422/Chny/2020 along with plethora of judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 79, which has been reproduced at page No.2 to 25 of ld.CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) are that conversion of dead crab into pasteurized crab meat amounts to manufacture as per definition u/s.2(29BA) of the Act, because the manufacturing starts only after the crab dies i.e., only after the same be…

Handy Waterbase India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1228/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 2

…as filed detailed written submissions on the issue 8 I.TA. Nos.672 & 1228/Chny/2018 & 422/Chny/2020 along with plethora of judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 79, which has been reproduced at page No.2 to 25 of ld.CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) are that conversion of dead crab into pasteurized crab meat amounts to manufacture as per definition u/s.2(29BA) of the Act, because the manufacturing starts only after the crab dies i.e., only after the same be…

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)

…or integral structure;" Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the ITA Nos. 6714 & 6715/Del/2018 15 Indraprastha Gas Ltd. Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. LTD. reported in 2010 320 ITR 79 (SC) in support of his case. On the face of it, it appears that compressed natural gas is a commodity having a distinct name, character and use and therefore, the test to determine whether 'manufacture' has taken place is satisfied. Without undergoing the process of compression natural gas in its original form cannot be used as fuel for the automo…

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)

…or article or thing with a different chemical composition or integral structure;" Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. LTD. reported in 2010 320 ITR 79 (SC) in support of his case. On the face of it, it appears that compressed natural gas is a commodity having a distinct name, character and use and therefore, the test to determine whether 'manufacture' has taken place is satisfied. Without undergoing the process of compression natural gas in its original form cannot be used as fuel for the automo…

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

…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 procedure/activity of purification, odorization, de-sulphu…

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

…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 procedure/activity of purification, odorization, de-sulphu…

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

…al vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) (viii) Shree Veer Aromatic Herb Products vs. Income Tax Officer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Lear…

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

…al vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) (viii) Shree Veer Aromatic Herb Products vs. Income Tax Officer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Lear…

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

…al vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) (viii) Shree Veer Aromatic Herb Products vs. Income Tax Officer 147 ITD 86 (Del) (ix) Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 377 Kolkatta (SB) (x) Shree Bhavani Minerals vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.68/PNI/2013 (Goa) (xi) Fiberfill Engineers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.1853/Del/2015 (xii) Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 323 (SC) 5.3 Lear…

Shri S.K. Golcha (HUF), Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Dangayach (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…e industries user as per their order/specifications and it tantamount to production and eligible for deduction u/s 80I/80-IA of the Income Tax Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tile and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 as well as decision of Hon’ble High Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. 352 ITR 20. Shri S.K. Golcha (HUF) vs. ACIT 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is not making any change in the composition of the goods even no chemical change is made by the assessee in this process of braking stone and grind…

Shri S.K. Golcha (HUF), Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/JPR/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Dangayach (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…e industries user as per their order/specifications and it tantamount to production and eligible for deduction u/s 80I/80-IA of the Income Tax Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tile and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 as well as decision of Hon’ble High Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. 352 ITR 20. Shri S.K. Golcha (HUF) vs. ACIT 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is not making any change in the composition of the goods even no chemical change is made by the assessee in this process of braking stone and grind…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-4, Jaipur vs. Sandeep Singh Choudhary (HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Dangayach (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…e industries user as per their order/specifications and it tantamount to production and eligible for deduction u/s 80I/80-IA of the Income Tax Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tile and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 as well as decision of Hon’ble High Court in case of CIT vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. 352 ITR 20. Shri S.K. Golcha (HUF) vs. ACIT 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is not making any change in the composition of the goods even no chemical change is made by the assessee in this process of braking stone and grind…

M/S Consumer Packaging Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 404/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt.CIT
Section 131Section 139Section 143(3)Section 80I

…elied on the following judgements in support of case of the assessee :– (i) CIT v/s. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd., dt. 29.09.2007; (ii) CIT v/s. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548; (iii) CIT v/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., 271 ITR 331; (iv) ITO v/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd., 320 ITR 79; (v) Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v/s. State of Bombay, dt. 20.09.1960; (vi) Hajee Abdul Shakoor and Co. v/s. State of Madras, dt. 07.05.1964; (vii) State of Madras v/s. Swastik Tobacco Factory, Vedaranyam, dt. 14.12.1965; and, (viii) Durandel Foods (P) Ltd. v/s. ITO, 6 ITR 207. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of…