Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT

255 ITR 178Supreme Court of India2003#8239 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also reported as

123 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 33BSection 80IB(2)(iv)Section 80IBSection 80IB(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhsection 80transferpersoncompanyindiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT

JAYDEEP PETRO CHEM CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2(3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…ate Limited 96 taxmann.com 299 holding as under:- “……23. The factual matrix clearly demonstrates that what has been done by the assessee is manufacture. Thedecision relied on by the Revenue in the case of Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT [2002] 123 Taxman 221/[2003]255 ITR 178 (SC) is distinguishable on facts as the activity which was the subject matter of the said case wasmaking powder from chicory roots and the appeal by the assessee was dismissed as the assessee failed tosatisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd.'s, case (supra). The learned counsel for the Revenue reliedupon the decision of the Division Ben…

JAYDEEP PETRO CHEM CO. PVT.LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…ate Limited 96 taxmann.com 299 holding as under:- “……23. The factual matrix clearly demonstrates that what has been done by the assessee is manufacture. Thedecision relied on by the Revenue in the case of Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT [2002] 123 Taxman 221/[2003]255 ITR 178 (SC) is distinguishable on facts as the activity which was the subject matter of the said case wasmaking powder from chicory roots and the appeal by the assessee was dismissed as the assessee failed tosatisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd.'s, case (supra). The learned counsel for the Revenue reliedupon the decision of the Division Ben…

MAGOTTEAUX INTERNATIONAL SA,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1358/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Swain, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1358/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2011-12] Magotteaux International SA Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Rue A, Dumont, B-4051, Circle - 3(2) Vaux-Sous-Chevermont International Taxation Belgium New Delhi PAN: AAGCM 5959 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Department By : Shri N.C. Swain, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 6714/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6714/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6715/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. Cit, Vs Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Special Range-4, Plot No. 4, Igl Bhawan, Sector-9, New Delhi R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5076R Assessee By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…anufacturing activity involved as nothing is consumed in the process. [ACIT Vs G.T.C. Enterprises (ITAT, Chennai) 87 ITD 188] iii. Roasting and grinding of chicory roots into chicory powder No manufacturing activity involved. [Sacs Eagles Chicory Vs CIT (SC) 255 ITR 178]. 1 iv. Chilly & Chilly products are essentially same commodity - No manufacturing activity involved. [Nampudhiris Pickle Industries (Ker) 1993 KLJ (Tax cases) 198] v. Breaking of big boulders into small stones or bajri - No manufacturing activity involved since no new and distinct commodity came into existence. [ITO Vs Jitendra Stone Crushing C…

INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6489/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6489/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Indraprastha Gas Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, Plot No. 4, Igl Bhawan, Special Range-4, Sector-9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi New Delhi-110022 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5076R Assessee By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…olved as nothing is consumed in the process. [ACIT Vs G.T.C. Enterprises (ITAT, Chennai) 87 ITD 188] 8 Indraprastha Gas Ltd. iii. Roasting and grinding of chicory roots into chicory powder No manufacturing activity involved. [Sacs Eagles Chicory Vs CIT (SC) 255 ITR 178]. iv. Chilly & Chilly products are essentially same commodity - No manufacturing activity involved. [Nampudhiris Pickle Industries (Ker) 1993 KLJ (Tax cases) 198] v. Breaking of big boulders into small stones or bajri - No manufacturing activity involved since no new and distinct commodity came into existence. [ITO Vs Jitendra Stone Crushing Co…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…1 ITA Nos. 4454 & 4642/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4454/Del/2013 (A.Y 1996-97) Gail (India) Ltd., Vs DCIT-LTU Delhi 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Large Tax Payer Unit, New Delhi – 110 066 NBCC Plaza Pushp Vihar, (PAN : AAACG 1209 J) Sector – 3, New Delhi – 110 017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And I.T.A. No. 4642/Del/2013 (A.Y 1996-97) DCIT-LTU Delhi Vs Gail (India) Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, NBCC Plaza Pushp Vihar, New Delhi – 110 066 Sector – 3, (PAN : A…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-LTU DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…1 ITA Nos. 4454 & 4642/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4454/Del/2013 (A.Y 1996-97) Gail (India) Ltd., Vs DCIT-LTU Delhi 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Large Tax Payer Unit, New Delhi – 110 066 NBCC Plaza Pushp Vihar, (PAN : AAACG 1209 J) Sector – 3, New Delhi – 110 017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And I.T.A. No. 4642/Del/2013 (A.Y 1996-97) DCIT-LTU Delhi Vs Gail (India) Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, NBCC Plaza Pushp Vihar, New Delhi – 110 066 Sector – 3, (PAN : A…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Cynamid India Ltd.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283 ITR 486 (Raj), B.G.Chitale vs. DCIT: 305 ITR(…

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Cynamid India Ltd.: 237 ITR 585, CST vs. D.S. Bist: 44 STC 392, Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka: 68 STC 239, and CIT vs. Relish Foods: 237 ITR 59 (SC), Sacs Eagles Chicory vs. CIT: 255 ITR 178 (SC) and also on the decisions reported inCIT vs. GitwakoFarma (I) (P) Ltd: 332 ITR 471 (Del), Raghbir Chand Som Chand v. Excise and Taxation Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 149.) (P&H), CIT vs. Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sale Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd.: 129 ITR 821 (Guj), D.D. Shah & Bros vs. UOI: 283 ITR 486 (Raj), B.G.Chitale vs. DCIT: 305 ITR(…

DXN HERBAL MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.K.Ravi,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R
Section 11BSection 431Section 43BSection 801B

…High Court has held as follows:- “23. The factual matrix clearly demonstrates that what has been done by the assessee is manufacture. The decision relied on by the Revenue in the case of Sacs Eagles Chicory Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [(2003) 255 ITR 178 SC] is distinguishable on facts as the activity which was the subject matter of the said case was making powder from chicory roots and the appeal by the assessee was dismissed as the assessee failed to satisfy the test laid down in Aspinwall & Co. :- 5 -: Ltd., case. The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Division Be…

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

…ise preparation of food stuffs/food packet by hotel does not amount to manufacture in India Hotels Company Ltd. vs ITO 245 ITR 538 (SC). k) Likewise conversion of Chicory Roots into Chicory powder was held to be not manufacturing in Sacs Eagles Chicory vs CIT 255 ITR 178 (SC). If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the assembling of parts done by the 40 Sudarshan R. Kharbanda assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that the activ…

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(…

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

…l does not amount to manufacture in India Hotels Company Ltd. vs ITO 245 ITR 538 (SC). 17 Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle ITA No.2369/Mum/2013 & k) Likewise conversion of Chicory Roots into Chicory powder was held to be not manufacturing in Sacs Eagles Chicory vs CIT 255 ITR 178 (SC). If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the processing activity done by the assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that the activity of the assessee amount…

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

…l does not amount to manufacture in India Hotels Company Ltd. vs ITO 245 ITR 538 (SC). 17 Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle ITA No.2369/Mum/2013 & k) Likewise conversion of Chicory Roots into Chicory powder was held to be not manufacturing in Sacs Eagles Chicory vs CIT 255 ITR 178 (SC). If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the processing activity done by the assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that the activity of the assessee amount…