Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT

98 ITR 119High Court1975#4803 most cited

What is Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An 'undertaking' is distinct from the 'legal entity' that owns it, meaning tax benefits related to an undertaking must be assessed on a per-undertaking basis, not for the company in general, especially when a company operates multiple undertakings.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT · 98 ITR 119 · undertaking vs company · section 84 · tax benefit · eligible undertaking · multiple undertakings · separate assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(iii)Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(2)(iii)Section 115BBESection 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 32asection 80jsection 80ia(4)going concernsection 80ictax benefitsection 10bdeduction under section 80iaeligible businesssection 80hhsection 10asection 80ia

Judgments citing Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…inedthat the word ‘undertaking’ is not to be equated with the “legal entity” which may own the undertaking. The ld.CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Courtin the case of Madras Machine Tool Manufacturers v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 (Madras), wherein it was held that a company may own or run many undertakings some of which may be entitled to the benefit of section 84 and others may not be so entitled and hence, it is not possible to equate the “undertaking” with the company which owns the undertaking. It was held therein that when a company owns more than one undertaking, the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

ITA 3316/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…inedthat the word 'undertaking' is not to be equated with the “legal entity” which may own the undertaking. The Id.CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Courtin the case of Madras Machine Tool Manufacturers v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 (Madras), wherein it was held that a company may own or run many undertakings some of which may be entitled to the benefit of section 84 and others may not be so entitled and hence, it is not possible to equate the “undertaking” with the company which owns the undertaking. It was held therein that when a company owns more than one undertaking, the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

…inedthat the word 'undertaking' is not to be equated with the “legal entity” which may own the undertaking. The Id.CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Courtin the case of Madras Machine Tool Manufacturers v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 (Madras), wherein it was held that a company may own or run many undertakings some of which may be entitled to the benefit of section 84 and others may not be so entitled and hence, it is not possible to equate the “undertaking” with the company which owns the undertaking. It was held therein that when a company owns more than one undertaking, the…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…equally applies to a case falling section 10A of the Act. P a g e | 26 ITA No. 1541/Mum/2023 & CO No. 65/Mum/2023 AY 2009-10 ASSB International Pvt. Ltd. 26. The Madras High Court in the case Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1975] 98 ITR 119 (Mad) has explained the difference between a company and an undertaking which is owned or run by such company. It was held as under (page 127): A company may own or run many undertakings, some of which may be entitled to the benefit of section 84 and others may not be so entitled. It is not, therefore, possible to equate the undertaking with the c…

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the compan…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the compan…

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…‘undertaking’ and not to the owner thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect that the deduction u/s.80IA is attached to an enterprise or an undertaking. 46. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119 while dealing with the question as to whether applicability of deduction under section 84 has to be with respect to a particular undertaking or to the company in general, held as under: “15. … It is not the manufacture or production of articles by the company but the manufacture or production by the undertaking, which is different from the company…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…following decisions, he submitted that following the aforesaid Circular, relief u/s 80J of the Act was granted:- i) 87 Taxman 101 (Cal) CIT v. P. K. Engineering and Forging (P) Ltd. ii) 233 ITR 207 (Mad) AGS Timber & Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT iii) 98 ITR 119 (Mad) Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT iv) 205 ITR 19 (Ker) Kerala State Cashew Dev. Corpn. v. CIT v) 213 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v. Tyresoles Concessionaries Pvt. Ltd. vi) 212 ITR 1 (Bom) CIT v. Dandeli Ferro Alloy (P) Ltd.. vii) 160 ITD 540 (Asr) Aggarwal & Co. v. DCIT viii) 391 ITR 274 (SC) CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (pages 443-444 of P…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…igure or a loss no deduction would be available to the assessee. 32. The AO also of the view that no “undertakings’ was set up and for this he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 119 for the meaning of the word undertaking. He further held that no separate undertaking was set up by the assessee for generation of power as: (a) Name in Form 10CCB was Saf Yeast Company Pvt Ltd which is the name of assessee company and it is engaged in production of yeast (b) Address mentioned is the same as that of assessee for producing yeast.…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…igure or a loss no deduction would be available to the assessee. 32. The AO also of the view that no “undertakings’ was set up and for this he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 119 for the meaning of the word undertaking. He further held that no separate undertaking was set up by the assessee for generation of power as: (a) Name in Form 10CCB was Saf Yeast Company Pvt Ltd which is the name of assessee company and it is engaged in production of yeast (b) Address mentioned is the same as that of assessee for producing yeast.…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…igure or a loss no deduction would be available to the assessee. 32. The AO also of the view that no “undertakings’ was set up and for this he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 119 for the meaning of the word undertaking. He further held that no separate undertaking was set up by the assessee for generation of power as: (a) Name in Form 10CCB was Saf Yeast Company Pvt Ltd which is the name of assessee company and it is engaged in production of yeast (b) Address mentioned is the same as that of assessee for producing yeast.…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…igure or a loss no deduction would be available to the assessee. 32. The AO also of the view that no “undertakings’ was set up and for this he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 119 for the meaning of the word undertaking. He further held that no separate undertaking was set up by the assessee for generation of power as: (a) Name in Form 10CCB was Saf Yeast Company Pvt Ltd which is the name of assessee company and it is engaged in production of yeast (b) Address mentioned is the same as that of assessee for producing yeast.…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…igure or a loss no deduction would be available to the assessee. 32. The AO also of the view that no “undertakings’ was set up and for this he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 119 for the meaning of the word undertaking. He further held that no separate undertaking was set up by the assessee for generation of power as: (a) Name in Form 10CCB was Saf Yeast Company Pvt Ltd which is the name of assessee company and it is engaged in production of yeast (b) Address mentioned is the same as that of assessee for producing yeast.…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2