M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India

209 ITR 877Supreme Court of India1994#19849 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,230 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

Judgments citing M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 829/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K.B. Muralidaran, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80I

…rein it was held that production of ready mix concrete does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined ujs.32(1)(iia). 3.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Builders Association of India vs. UOI reported in 209 ITR 877 (SC) and the Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Agra construction Corporation reported in 146 Taxman 31 which are favourable to revenue. 3.5 The learned C1T(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the on similar issue for A.Y.2009-10 in the assessee's own case, the department has filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Since th…

Asst CIT 6(2) (Earlier CC 35), Mumbai vs. Gannon Dunkerly & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7141/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7141/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-Cent.Cir-6(2) M/S. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.Ltd. 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Bldg. (Earlier Cc-35) Vs. Room No.104, First Floor, A.K. Nayak Marg, Mumbai-400 001. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacg 1846 P Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K.V. Vispute-Dr Assessee By: Shri P.H. Marfatia-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 02.09.2014,Of The Cit(A)-1,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee, Company,Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Civil Engineering, Filed Its Return Of Income On 15/10/2007,Declaring Income At Rs.148.79 Crores.The Assessing Office(Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 3/3/ 2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.160.84 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri P.H. Marfatia-ARFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ctivities of the assessee are settled and decided in favour of the assessee, However the AO was of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two decisions namely CIT Vs N.C. Buddharaj '& Co 204 ITR 412 and Builder Association of India Vs Union of India 209 ITR 877 has held that construction of building, bridges or quarters etc. cannot be construed to mean manufacture or production of any article or thing.The AO following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court disallowed the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,53,19,184/-. 13. The assessee agitated this matter before the Ld.CIT(A) and explai…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. M/S Khanna Brothers

The appeals are dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances, with no

ITA/490/2015HC Delhi17 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80I

…C) and held that the fabrication work done by the Assessee and erected at the factory site of the contractee cannot be called manufacture. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877 (SC) where it was held that construction of a dam, building, bridge or road and the like cannot be brought within the purview of the word 'article' or 'thing' and therefore, investment allowance was not allowable under Section 32 A of the Act. ITA Nos.972, 967 & 490/2015 Page 5 of 11 V . r' 11. Accordingly the AO added back to the income of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Khanna Brothers

The appeals are dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances, with no

ITA/972/2015HC Delhi17 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 80I

…and held that the fabrication work done by the Assessee and erected at the factory site of the contractee cannot be called manufacture. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877 (SC) where it was held that construction of a dam, building, bridge or road and the like cannot be brought within the purview of the word ‘article’ or ‘thing’ and therefore, investment allowance was not allowable under Section 32A of the Act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi Hig…