Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

107 ITR 195Supreme Court of India1977#591 most cited

What is Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 107 ITR 195 · Section 80J · Section 80IC · new industrial undertaking · reconstruction of business · splitting up of business · tax deduction eligibility · independent production unit · transfer of substantial assets · tax benefits

Also reported as

2 SCC 368

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80-ICSection 10(2A)Section 143(3A)Section 28(v)Section 40(b)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)software technology parksection 80jsection 80icsection 80hhcsection 80hhtax benefitsection 80isection 80iasection 10aarm's length pricegross total income

Judgments citing Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1950/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…by the assessee was not relevant in the context of the case and that there was no evidence of any additional production capacity. According to him therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) was squarely applicable to the present case. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that, the assessee had set up a new unit in the backward area of Uttarakhand, prior to 01.04.2012 and therefore such unit qualified as an eligible unit for the purposes of Section…

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1948/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…by the assessee was not relevant in the context of the case and that there was no evidence of any additional production capacity. According to him therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) was squarely applicable to the present case. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that, the assessee had set up a new unit in the backward area of Uttarakhand, prior to 01.04.2012 and therefore such unit qualified as an eligible unit for the purposes of Section…

M/S.Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1947/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…by the assessee was not relevant in the context of the case and that there was no evidence of any additional production capacity. According to him therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) was squarely applicable to the present case. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that, the assessee had set up a new unit in the backward area of Uttarakhand, prior to 01.04.2012 and therefore such unit qualified as an eligible unit for the purposes of Section…

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1946/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

…by the assessee was not relevant in the context of the case and that there was no evidence of any additional production capacity. According to him therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) was squarely applicable to the present case. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that, the assessee had set up a new unit in the backward area of Uttarakhand, prior to 01.04.2012 and therefore such unit qualified as an eligible unit for the purposes of Section…

M/S. Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4621/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Circle 16(1), Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) C.R. Bldg., New Delhi Ltd., 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 16 (Pan: Aaacp5890Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Tavish Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 391Section 80I

…3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act to the assessee ignoring ratio decidendi of Apex court in case of M/s Textile Machinery Corporation Limited vs. CIT (1997) 107 ITR 195 wherein it 2 was held that transfer and use of substantial assets and manpower will amount to reconstruction of the business?” 2.1. Also for this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 :- “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the after- market (trading) expenses should be allocated on the basis of tota…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4240/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Circle 16(1), Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) C.R. Bldg., New Delhi Ltd., 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 16 (Pan: Aaacp5890Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Tavish Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 391Section 80I

…3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act to the assessee ignoring ratio decidendi of Apex court in case of M/s Textile Machinery Corporation Limited vs. CIT (1997) 107 ITR 195 wherein it 2 was held that transfer and use of substantial assets and manpower will amount to reconstruction of the business?” 2.1. Also for this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 :- “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the after- market (trading) expenses should be allocated on the basis of tota…

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 10A

…truction of business has been judicially interpreted by multiple High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of rulings, few of which is listed below: a. Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) – Page 27 of Case Law Compilation b. Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Aluminum Co Ltd (108 ITR 167) – Page 37 of Case Law Compilation c. Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (443 ITR 34) – Page 57 of Case Law Compilation d. Ruling of the Hon’ble Jurisdictiona…

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

…struction of business has been judicially interpreted by multiple High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of rulings, few of which is listed below: a. Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (107 ITR 195) – Page 27 of Case Law Compilation b. Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Aluminum Co Ltd (108 ITR 167) – Page 37 of Case Law Compilation c. Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (443 ITR 34) – Page 57 of Case Law Compilation d. Ruling of the Hon'ble Jurisdicti…

Assistant Commissiner of Iincome Tax Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 260/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Rajkot

ITA 255/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. Addi. CIT, Range-2, Rajkot

ITA 254/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 250/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 249/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 248/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 247/RJT/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ing and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession.In support of the above submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669, (6). Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…e is placed on following judicial precedents wherein the courts laid down preposition that provisions relating to exemption or concession must as far as possible be liberally construed and in favour of the assessee: Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC) CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. (1959) 35 ITR 662, 673 (Bom) Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, (1973) 91 ITR 566, 570 (Bom) CIT v. Simpson & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 283, 287 (Mad.) CIT v. Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 623 (MP) 22. In light of the above legal arguments and judicial precedents and considering the fact that there is…

Income Tax Officer - 24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Foce Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 3629/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Foce Industries, 6Th Floor, 4, Kingston, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Shashtri Nagar Lane-I, Lalbaugh, Parel, Lokhandwala Complex, Mumbai. Andheri West, Mumbai Pan : Aafff0162K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR
Section 80Section 801E(7)(iv)Section 80I

…a case of reconstruction of business, allowed assessee's claim for exemption - High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal - Whether, on facts, SLP f iled against order of High Court was to be dismissed held, yes.‟‟ d)Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 107 ITR 195 (SC) “Assessee, a heavy engineering concern, set up two separate new units to manufacture articles which were to be used by assessee rs existing units - Whether since new industrial undertakings were separate and independent production units in sense that commodities produced were commercially tangible products and undertakings could be carried o…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…04 to 2005-06 wherein similar Page No. 20 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited claim of the assessee was allowed. Further, he brought to our notice decision of the CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [108 ITR 367] wherein similar claim was allowed. 26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the issue raised by the Assessing Officer in claim of the deduction under section 80IB of the Act is the inclusion of marketing margin of ₹.10158.56 lakhs. The Assessing Officer disputed the fact that the margin derived by the…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…04 to 2005-06 wherein similar Page No. 20 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited claim of the assessee was allowed. Further, he brought to our notice decision of the CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [108 ITR 367] wherein similar claim was allowed. 26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the issue raised by the Assessing Officer in claim of the deduction under section 80IB of the Act is the inclusion of marketing margin of ₹.10158.56 lakhs. The Assessing Officer disputed the fact that the margin derived by the…