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.

Commissioner of Income tAx vs. Sri Padala Ramakrishna Reddy

The appeals stand dismissed

ITTA/6/2009HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10BSection 36(1)Section 80H

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s. Manglam Arts, Govind Nagar, Amber Palace Road, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. K.D. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 31/07/2017 By way of this appeal, the appellant has…

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar IT Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AFYPK0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal…

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2369/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar IT Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AFYPK0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…ex (2014) – 270 ITR 66 (Guj.) after discussing the issue in detail in view of several decisions including decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goetz (India) vs. CIT (2006) – 284 ITR 323 (S.C), ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (2010) – 320 ITR 79 (S.C), NTPC Ltd. vs.CIT (1998)- 229 ITR 383 (S.C) as well as its own decision in the case of CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) – 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) (FB) has been pleased to hold that merely because a ground has not been raised though it could have been raised in support of the relief sought in the appeal, it cannot be said that su…

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

ITA/551/2013HC Delhi05 Feb 2015
Section 10B

…; to make accrue; to bring about the performance of, as a movie or play; to extend, as a line. To bring forth or yield appropriate offspring, products, or consequences.‖ 14. In Income Tax Officer versus Arihant Tiles and Marbles Private Limited, [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC), it was observed that cutting of marble blocks into slabs or tiles per se may not amount to ―manufacture‖ but the activity would constitute ―production‖. Further, when one refers to the word "production", it means a process plus something in addition thereto. Every manufacture can qualify as production but every production need not am…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2002HC Delhi22 Dec 2014
Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 88H

…d; to make accrue; to bring about the performance of, as a movie or play; to extend, as a line. To bring forth or yield appropriate offspring, products, or consequences.” 14. In Income Tax Officer versus Arihant Tiles and Marbles Private Limited, [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC), it was observed that cutting of marble blocks into slabs or tiles per se may not amount to “manufacture” but the activity would constitute “production”. Further, when one refers to the word "production", it means a process plus something in addition thereto. Every manufacture can qualify as production but every production need not amou…

Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. Moole Rami Reddy

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/450/2011HC Telangana01 Feb 2012
Section 80Section 80I

…[2024:RJ-JP:32605-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 450/2011 Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Shri Shashikant Jain Aged 52 years, M/s. Nakoda Crashers & Engineers, Ralayati, Distt. Jhalawar ----Appellant-Assessee Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya (Through V.C.) Mr. Devang Gargeiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma Mr. Anurag Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 31/07/2024 1. This appeal is filed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1223/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2011
Section 10ASection 260A

…to make accrue; to bring about the performance of, as a movie or play; to extend, as a line. To bring forth or yield appropriate offspring, products, or consequences.” 14. In Income Tax Officer versus Arihant Tiles and Marbles Private Limited, [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC), it was observed that cutting of marble blocks into slabs or tiles per se may not amount to “manufacture” but the activity would constitute “production”. Further, when one refers to the word "production", it means a process plus something in addition thereto. Every manufacture can qualify as production but every production need not amoun…