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 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 403/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08
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…

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 402/NAG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07
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…

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 401/NAG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2005-06
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…

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 400/NAG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2004-05
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…

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 399/NAG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2003-04
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…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am D.C.I.T, Cir­10(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaaci5573R (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Assessee/Revenue By : Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Ld. Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Shrid. S Damle, Fca, Ld.Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: ShriD. S Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Dr.A.L.Saini, AM D.C.I.T, Cir­10(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. PAN: AAACI5573R (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Assessee/Revenue by : Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld. DR Respondent/Assessee by : ShriD. S Damle, FCA, ld.AR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 18/12/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2010­11, is directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Inc…

ACIT, Cir-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 48/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…dustries by the appellant is manufacturing process where a finished product distinct from the raw material has come into existence. The appellant is registered with Excise Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said activity does not amount to manufacture or production under section 80IA of the Act will have disastrous consequences. The appellant has demonstrated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of article and things. It fulfills a…

M/S.Chariot International (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1722/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bharath Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10BSection 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80Section 9

…ring process. Thus, the Act itself recognizes such activities as manufacture. Page 2 of 3 4. The learned AO & CIT (A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case are similar to the activities undertaken in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd (320 ITR 79), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after elaborately considering all the precedents on the subjects, held that 'sawing of marble blocks into slabs and tiles and polishing amount to manufacture or production and the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act'. 5. The learned AO & CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that in our own case f…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghavi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2455/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) V. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp Room No. 207, {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.237/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) [Arising Out Of Ita No.2455/Mum/2017] M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp V. A.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Tardeo Bharat Diamond Bourse, Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. AjgaonkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

…iia) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim by observing that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant tiles & Marble Pvt. Ltd., 320 ITR 79 (SC) allowed the claim of the assessee vide Para 7.2 as under: - 7.2. I have carefully considered the appellant’s submissions on this issue. The AO held that the appellant’s activity of cutting and polishing of diamonds does not amount to manufacturing or production of goods in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gen Ind…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, „जी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री जी. मंजूनाथ, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment 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.AHDPK9148…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…arried on by the appellant is manufacturing process where a finished product distinct from the raw material has come into existence. The appellant is registered with Excise Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said activity does not amount to manufacture or production under section 80IA of the Act will have disastrous consequences. The appellant has demonstrated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of article and things. It fulfills a…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…arried on by the appellant is manufacturing process where a finished product distinct from the raw material has come into existence. The appellant is registered with Excise Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said activity does not amount to manufacture or production under section 80IA of the Act will have disastrous consequences. The appellant has demonstrated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of article and things. It fulfills a…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…arried on by the appellant is manufacturing process where a finished product distinct from the raw material has come into existence. The appellant is registered with Excise Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said activity does not amount to manufacture or production under section 80IA of the Act will have disastrous consequences. The appellant has demonstrated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of article and things. It fulfills a…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…arried on by the appellant is manufacturing process where a finished product distinct from the raw material has come into existence. The appellant is registered with Excise Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said activity does not amount to manufacture or production under section 80IA of the Act will have disastrous consequences. The appellant has demonstrated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of article and things. It fulfills a…

ACIT, Circle - 41, Kolkata vs. M/S. Anmol Textiles, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2031/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2031/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-41, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anmol Textiles [Pan: Aadfn 4059 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 10BSection 133ASection 14Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 9

…re to pay excise duty on the ground that the same amounted to manufacturing activity but would be declined deduction under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the same did not. In this context, in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 (Se)' the Supreme Court had observed as under:- “23. 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 consequences. As stated above, each of the respondents is payi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Jsw Steel Processing Centres Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed while the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1978/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40

…in the activity of conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls of different sizes, the Apex Court held the activity carried out by the assessee to be manufacturing. Similarly in in ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79/186 Taxman 439, after taking into account its earlier decisions rendered in Aman Marble Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, [2005] 1 SCC 279; CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [2004] 271 ITR 331/[2005] 142 Taxman 16 (SC); Lucky Minmat (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 9 SCC 669; Rajasthan SEB v. Associated Stone Industries [2000] 6 SCC 141; and CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [199…

ACIT - 31(3), Mumbai vs. Unique Gem & Jewellery, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2946/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2946/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna R
Section 10BSection 133ASection 260A

…onducted their Statutory Audit for the period upto 31.03-2011 and had verified the relevant import & export details and the manufacturing activity. The assessee also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ITO vs Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt Ltd (2010)320 ITR 79 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- "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 consequences. As stated above, each of the respondents is paying excise duty,…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Acit 19(2) Vs. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons R.No.L-207, 1301, Prasad Chambers Matru Mandir Mamam Parmanand Marg Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk8390F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…iia) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim by observing that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The CIT (A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marble Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) allowed the claim of the assessee vide Para 2.4.40 as under:- 2.4.40 It is seen that in the earlier year, this claim has been allowed following the decision in the case of Sheetal Diamonds Ltd. in ITA No.6687 to 6689/Mum/2002 dated 23.3.2011 where the issue of cutting and polishing of diamonds whether constituted manufacturing activity or not…

M/S. Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1901/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

…book, date of merger is 01.04.2009. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of this contention that in the present case, the assessee has to be accepted as an industrial undertaking A) ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT Vs. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. 107 ITR 822 (MAD.) D) CIT Vs. Suresh Amin Family Trust 288 ITR 101 (Gujarat) 10. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble madras High Court rendered in the case of ACIT Vs…

M/S. Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1900/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

…book, date of merger is 01.04.2009. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of this contention that in the present case, the assessee has to be accepted as an industrial undertaking A) ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT Vs. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. 107 ITR 822 (MAD.) D) CIT Vs. Suresh Amin Family Trust 288 ITR 101 (Gujarat) 10. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble madras High Court rendered in the case of ACIT Vs…