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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

DIT II vs. Virage Logic International

Appeals are dismissed; the applications to recall the order dismissing the execution

ITA/61/2013HC Delhi11 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

Section 34Section 483

…tract customers and it would be to the detriment of the interest of the borrower and the creditor alike if sales were allowed to be impugned merely because the decree was ultimately set aside or modified.” Gurjoginder Singh v. Jaswant Kaur & Anr (1994) 2 SCC 368, relied on the judgment rendered by the Privy Council held that the status of a bona fide purchaser in an auction sale in execution of a decree to which he was not a party stood on a distinct and different footing from that of a person who was inducted as a tenant by a decree-holder-landlord. It was held as follows: "A stranger auction purchas…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3290/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3289/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3288/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3287/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3286/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 3285/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 1999-00
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1390/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1389/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, we direct the AO to delete penalty in all the years under consideration

ITA 1388/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Ltu, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4275/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishimahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Dcit Ltu, 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Ltu, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, New Delhi 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…absence of these details, the computation of the deduction was not possible and the claim of the appellant was imaginary and unverifiable. The Ld. AO also distinguished the facts of the case from the facts in the case of M/s Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. 107 ITR 195 (SC) cited by the appellant, as in his view, the said decision was in respect of section 15C of the IT Act 1922, in which there was no requirement for maintaining separate books of accounts. 6.4.2 Before me, the appellant company filed detailed submissions. The appellant company through its authorized representatives, submitted that it is not in…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3067/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3066/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3065/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3064/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Majmudar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3063/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143Section 147

…struction of the new firm to avail the benefit under Section 80IC of the IT Act. The ratio of the judgment rendered by SC in the case of Textile case (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) not followed. Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) held that the principal object is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering a tax incentive within a stipulated period. There is no formation of any ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the asset of the old business are transferred substa…

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1006/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1006/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Sap Labs India P. Ltd, No.138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant Pan : Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri. KanchanKoushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh K. R. Jha, CIT -DR
Section 234BSection 92C

…ope for speaking about any reconstruction of an existing business." 9. The judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Gaekwar Foam [1959] 35 ITR 662 (Bom) was approved by the Supreme Court in a judgment in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC). The Supreme Court, in that case, dealt with the issue as to whether within the meaning of section 15C(2)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the industrial undertakings which consisted of a steel foundry division and jute mill division were not formed by the reconstruction of a business already in existence. The Supreme Court observed th…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, for assessment year 1999-2000 appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent

ITA 1385/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801ASection 80I

…different item from what was being manufactured by the old unit in order to claim exemption under section 80IA and 80IB of the Act. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) as also in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 108 ITR 367(SC) in this context. The aforesaid decisions would reveal the facts that show that new units were set-up for the purpose of producing the same item which were being produced in the old units. Both the judgments show that the decisive test is that industrial unit set-up must be new…