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.

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 872/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…sion in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Jansons & Co. (2006) 283 ITR 175 (All.). 4. It i…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…sion in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Jansons & Co. (2006) 283 ITR 175 (All.). 4. It i…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…sion in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Jansons & Co. (2006) 283 ITR 175 (All.). 4. It i…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…sion in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Jansons & Co. (2006) 283 ITR 175 (All.). 4. It i…

Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd

C.A. No.-009295-009295 - 2017Supreme Court03 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80Section 80H

…that this definition itself provides legislative intent as well as that of the Central Government treating the process as manufacture of gas. Mr. Gulati also argued that for the purposes of Section 80-IB of the Act, which provides a deduction 5 (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) 6 (2005) 6 SCC 292 12 for industrial undertaking established in the North Eastern region, the Central Government has notified vide Notification No. 627(E) dated August 4, 1999, eligible industries and the following entry is relevant for the purposes of the instant appeals: “13. Gas based intermediate products industry manufacturing or pro…

ITO, Chennai vs. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 811/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Pavuna Sundari, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 10BSection 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 811/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, M/s. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., No. 8, 2nd Street, Corporate Circle -1(3), Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Ganapathy Colony, Chennai – 600 086. [PAN: AACCC 3310J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ% क& ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Pavuna Sundari, JCIT )*यथ% क& ओर से/R…

DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata, Darjeeling vs. Narendra Tea Company (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1517/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10A

…l structure; The aforesaid definition of the expression “manufacture”, although brought into the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.2009, was applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 82 (SC) on the ground that Parliament had taken note of ground reality in inserting section 2(29BA) in the Income Tax Law. The said definition was again applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. (2010) “Green Tea” means the variety of manufactured tea commercially known as green tea; 320 ITR 665, 667 (SC). 33. The…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2226/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…Corporation and Others vs CIT (314 ITR 309) that conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flaps and rolls in desired sizes amounts to manufacture or production of an article or thing. Similarly, in ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd {320 ITR 79), the Supreme Court held that conversion of marble bloc s into polished slabs and tiles amounted to manufacture or production. In CIT vs. Oracle Software India Ltd(320 ITR 546) the Supreme Court held that the process of transforming the blank or compact disc if to software loaded disc amounts to manufacture . While in CIT vs. Empee Poly-yarn Pvt.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2225/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…Corporation and Others vs CIT (314 ITR 309) that conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flaps and rolls in desired sizes amounts to manufacture or production of an article or thing. Similarly, in ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd {320 ITR 79), the Supreme Court held that conversion of marble bloc s into polished slabs and tiles amounted to manufacture or production. In CIT vs. Oracle Software India Ltd(320 ITR 546) the Supreme Court held that the process of transforming the blank or compact disc if to software loaded disc amounts to manufacture . While in CIT vs. Empee Poly-yarn Pvt.…

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…structure; The aforesaid definition of the expression "manufacture", although brought into the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.2009, was applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 82 (SC) on the ground that Parliament had taken note of ground reality in inserting section 2(29BA) in the Income Tax Law. The said definition was again applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. (2010) "Green Tea" means the variety of manufactured tea commercially known as green tea; 320 ITR 665,667 (SC). 33. The…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…structure; The aforesaid definition of the expression "manufacture", although brought into the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.2009, was applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 82 (SC) on the ground that Parliament had taken note of ground reality in inserting section 2(29BA) in the Income Tax Law. The said definition was again applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. (2010) "Green Tea" means the variety of manufactured tea commercially known as green tea; 320 ITR 665,667 (SC). 33. The…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2033/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 Pan – Afypk0221L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Tikekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 PAN – AFYPK0221L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Saurabh Deshpande Respondent by: Shri Deepak Tikekar Date of Hearing: 29.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. D.A. Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…sions:- “1. Parmes Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 1073- 1075/Mum/2009 2. Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, 64 SOT 135 (Mum-Trib) 3. Barmecha’s Impex (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 105 TTJ 533 (Mum-Trib) 4. ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., 320 ITR 79 (SC) 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The short controversy before us is as to whether the activity of cutting and polishing of rough diamonds amounts to manufacture or not? At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee has also furnished an Explanatory Note dealing with the various steps and stages 1…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K P Sanghvi & Sons, Income Tax -16(3), Matru 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Operahouse,Mumbai-4 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaafk8390F .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Sri R P Meena Respondent By .. Sri K Shivram Date Of Hearing .. 29-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 29 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-27/Ac-16(3)/135/13-14 Dated 22.4.2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- Circle 16(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 28.3.2013 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim by observing that the assessee is not engaged in 26 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 no…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…ted that only an assessee who is engaged in the business of extraction of iron ore from earth is alone be called a manufacturing activity within the meaning of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. (320 ITR 79). He thus submitted that since assessee-company is only a trader in iron ore, it is not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the Act. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 16 of 72 12. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue in these grounds of appeal is whether the assessee-company is eligible for ded…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…ted that only an assessee who is engaged in the business of extraction of iron ore from earth is alone be called a manufacturing activity within the meaning of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. (320 ITR 79). He thus submitted that since assessee-company is only a trader in iron ore, it is not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the Act. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 16 of 72 12. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue in these grounds of appeal is whether the assessee-company is eligible for ded…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…ted that only an assessee who is engaged in the business of extraction of iron ore from earth is alone be called a manufacturing activity within the meaning of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. (320 ITR 79). He thus submitted that since assessee-company is only a trader in iron ore, it is not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the Act. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 16 of 72 12. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue in these grounds of appeal is whether the assessee-company is eligible for ded…

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6436/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6436 & 6437/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems, Dy. Cit-16(3), बनाम/ 101, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai M. P. Marg, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb 2302 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Sandeep Goel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2006-07 & 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) & 143 R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common Grievance In Both The Years Pertain To Decline Of Claim Of Additional Depreciation. In The A.Y. 2006-07, Scrutiny Assessment Was Framed U/S.143(3), Wherein After Calling Details Of Plant & Machinery So Installed During The Year, The Assessing Officer Has Allowed The Assessee’S Claim Of Additional Deprecation. Thereafter The (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems Vs. Dy. Cit Assessment Was Reopended On The Plea That As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 Itr 307 (Sc), Cutting & Polishing Of Diamonds Did Not Amount To Manufacture/Production. Accordingly, Additional Deprecation Was Disallowed & The Order Of Ao Was Confirmed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel
Section 143(3)Section 80

…Gem India Mfg. Co. (supra) cannot be applied in all the cases and held that the process of conversion of rough diamond into polished diamond has to be examined in a given case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v/s Arihant Tiles and Marbles, [2007] 320 ITR 79 (SC) has cited case law on this subject and observed that the detailed process was undertaken for the purpose of production and manufacturing of article or thing has to be examined for coming to any (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s. Bhavani Gems vs. Dy. CIT conclusion. It was held that conversion of marble blocks into polished slabs and tiles constit…

Star India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T.-Range311(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6332/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: S/Shri Porus Kaka & Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92

…te is not to be automatically imported while interpreting similar expression in another statute. This judgment has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR (SC) 513 : (2009) 32 DTR (SC) 161 : (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC). 18. From the aforestated portion of the statement of objects and reasons and the preamble of the Act, it is evident that the rationale behind the Information Technology Act, 2000 is quite distinct from that of the IT Act, as can be seen from its preamble, which is 'an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to income-tax and super- tax…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…and resultant products in the process of manufacturing. Further, the assessee company also complied the conditions for claiming deduction u/s.10B and relied on the Supreme Court and High Courts decisions as under:- ‘’(i) Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd ( 320 ITR 79) (SC) (ii) Ambika Recycling (2014) (45 Taxmann.com 386) (Guj) (iii) Budharaha and Co. (204 ITR 412) (SC) (iv) SesaGoa Ltd. (271 ITR 331) (SC) (v) Vijay Shipping Corporation (314 ITR 309) (SC) (vi) Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd (210 Taxman 257) (vii) Gem Granities (141 Taxman 528) (vii) John Brown Technologies India P. Ltd (257CTR370) Kar’’ The ld. Commi…