Ujagar Prints v. Union of India

179 ITR 317Supreme Court of India1989#8822 most cited

What is Ujagar Prints v. Union of India authority for?

Business activities do not amount to manufacturing or assembling if the materials used retain their original identity and the commodity is not subjected to an intermediate process. The prerequisites and conditions for manufacturing or assembling, as enumerated in prior judgments, must be fulfilled.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ujagar Prints v. Union of India · 179 ITR 317 · manufacturing · assembling · production · business activity · original identity · intermediate process

Judgments citing Ujagar Prints v. Union of India

M/S Asha Technologies, Kala Amb vs. ITO, Sirmour

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…549 xi) UOI Vs. DCM (1963) AIR 1963 SC 791 xii) Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M/s P10 Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, AIR 1980 SC 1227. xiii) Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 xiv) Ujjar Prints Vs. UOI (1989) 179 ITR 317 27. That Ld. AO in view of the above judgments has held as follows: “Hence, in view of above findings of the Hon'ble Courts, it is beyond doubt that the business activity carried on by the assessee firm M/s. Asha Tecnologies, does not tantamount to manufacturing or assembling. None of the prerequisites or conditions enumerated in above judgment…

M/S Asha Technologies, Sirmour vs. Addl. CIT, Solan

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…549 xi) UOI Vs. DCM (1963) AIR 1963 SC 791 xii) Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M/s P10 Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63, AIR 1980 SC 1227. xiii) Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 162 ITR 846 xiv) Ujjar Prints Vs. UOI (1989) 179 ITR 317 27. That Ld. AO in view of the above judgments has held as follows: “Hence, in view of above findings of the Hon'ble Courts, it is beyond doubt that the business activity carried on by the assessee firm M/s. Asha Tecnologies, does not tantamount to manufacturing or assembling. None of the prerequisites or conditions enumerated in above judgment…

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

…amount to “production”:  Dy. CST v. PIO Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC)  Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.,  AIR 1963 SC 791 Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE: [1990] 183 ITR 577 (SC)  Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India: 179 ITR 317, 341 (SC)  N.C. Budhiraja: 204 ITR 412 (SC)  Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. V. CIT: 251 ITR 323 (SC)  CST vs. Jagannnath Cotton Company: 99 STC 83, 86 (SC)  CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.: 279 ITR 331 (SC)  India Cine Agency v. CIT: 308 ITR 98 (SC)  ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79 (SC)  Ship Scrap Traders v. CIT: 251 ITR 806 (Bom)  Ori…

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

…amount to “production”:  Dy. CST v. PIO Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC)  Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.,  AIR 1963 SC 791 Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE: [1990] 183 ITR 577 (SC)  Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India: 179 ITR 317, 341 (SC)  N.C. Budhiraja: 204 ITR 412 (SC)  Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. V. CIT: 251 ITR 323 (SC)  CST vs. Jagannnath Cotton Company: 99 STC 83, 86 (SC)  CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.: 279 ITR 331 (SC)  India Cine Agency v. CIT: 308 ITR 98 (SC)  ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.: 320 ITR 79 (SC)  Ship Scrap Traders v. CIT: 251 ITR 806 (Bom)  Ori…

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 195Section 248Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…y, has to be construed in a generic sense. The same has in fact been the subject matter of elucidation by the Ho 'ble apex court in a number of cases, viz. Chillies Exports Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 814/92 Taxman 68 (SQ;Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 179 ITR 317 (SC); Dy. CST, Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC), explaining the same in the context of processing of goods, which though would apply and hold. There is nothing in the language of the relevant provision/s of either the Act or of the DTAA constricting or restricting the scope of the term, which has thus to be exami…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Auto Ignition Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6646/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13

Section 143Section 80

…ght be border line cases where either conclusion with equal justification may be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between processing and manufacture results in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence.... [179 ITR 317] Manufacture 1996 Kerala CIT Vs. Oceanic Products Exporting Co. High Court The prevalent and general accepted test to ascertain whether there is manufacture is to find whether the change or the series of changes brought about by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the…

Sri. Cheriyan Abraham, Bangalore vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R N Parbat, CIT-3 (D.R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292BSection 5

…ame is not applicable to the return filed in pursuance to notice under s. 148. To buttress their argument, they further relied on the cases Dr. Pratap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement (supra) and Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India (1989) 75 CTR (SC) 1 : (1989) 179 ITR 317 (SC) and CIT vs. Bansidhar Jalan & Sons (supra) and Vishwanath Prasad Bhagwati Prasad vs. CIT (supra) for the proposition that jurisdictional foundation is validly laid by issue of notice under s. 148 and cannot be taken away by a procedural section. 35. In Dr. Pratap Singh’s case the apex Court held that the said phrase would mean, "that those p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Auto Ignition Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4488/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuin Ita No. 4488/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Auto Ignition Ltd. Circle-2(1), New Delhi The Bahar, 37, Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaaca5390E)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Melhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80I

…ght be border line cases where either conclusion with equal justification may be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between processing and manufacture results in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence.... [179 ITR 317] Manufacture 1996 Kerala CIT Vs. Oceanic Products Exporting Co. High Court The prevalent and general accepted test to ascertain whether there is manufacture is to find whether the change or the series of changes brought about by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.767 to 771/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2011-12) AND ITA Nos.1008 & 1009/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2004-05 & 2007-08) M/s.ILC Industries Ltd. D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 … Appellant PAN:AABCI0361A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 20/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2016 O R D…

M/S. Bartaman Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…w-cause as to why the said assessment order should not be revised on this issue. 3. In reply, it was submitted by the assesese by relying on the various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints [179 ITR 317] that the job of printing was in the nature of manufacturing and, therefore, it was entitled for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) on the addition made to plant and machinery. It was contended that the order of the Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee for such depreciation, therefore, was neither erroneous nor preju…

Ujagar Prints v. Union of India (179 ITR 317) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax