Section 33B of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 33B is General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (25 Taxmann.com 364), cited in 46 of the 30 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 33B

General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
25 Taxmann.com 364 · 2012 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Section 44AB (tax audit) does not apply where the assessee is not engaged in a business or profession and consequently has no income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession'.

Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay
10 STC 500 · 1959 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The mixing of different brands of tea without the application of any mechanical or chemical process does not constitute 'manufacture' or 'processing'. This precedent was later distinguished by the Supreme Court in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that blending of ore did amount to processing.

Sacs Eagles Chicory v. CIT
255 ITR 178 · 2003 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

Roasting and grinding chicory roots into chicory powder does not constitute manufacturing activity, as it fails to satisfy the test for production of a new article laid down in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd.'s case.

ITO v. Novelty Garments
256 ITR 688 · 2007 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Pr. CIT v. Petrofils Co-operative Limited
130 Taxmann.com 191 · 2021 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Madurai Pandian Engg. Corpn. Ltd.
239 ITR 375 · 1999 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Pr. CIT v. Petrofils Co-operative Limited
130 Taxmann.com 190 · 2021 · High Court
4
citing judgments
CIT v. KMC Speciality Hospitals India Private Limited
130 Taxmann.com 215 · 2021 · High Court
4
citing judgments
CIT v. Jyoti Plastic Works ( P
16 Taxmann.com 172 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 33B

Umesh Narottam Udeshi, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3946/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: AABPU3428P
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Bashir Jafar Bhaldar, Sonai Services 1 Sonai Services, Baramati Road Ind vs. Assessing Officer Ward 14(5) Pune, Aayakar Sadan Bodhi Tower Salasbury Park Gultekdi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2919/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 288Section 33BSection 44ASection 80J

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1338/HYD/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2000-2001
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabab

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1337/HYD/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1999-2000
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

DCIT, Circle-3, Bulandshahr vs. Abid Ali Khan, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Circle, Vs. Shri Abid Ali Khan, Bulandshahr. S/O Shri Mohd. Ali Khan, Prop. M/S. All India Metal Traders, Hanifa Manzil, Upper Kote, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Adlpk3005F) Co No.62/Del/2021 (In Ita No.2055/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Abid Ali Khan, Vs. Dcit, Circle, S/O Shri Mohd. Ali Khan, Bulandshahr. Prop. M/S. All India Metal Traders, Hanifa Manzil, Upper Kote, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Adlpk3005F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Order : 28.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya:

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 244ASection 33B

Sh. Devender Kumar Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6901/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Vipin Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 33BSection 80Section 80I

Jhaveri Coaters (P) Ltd vs. Asstt. C.I.T

Appeal is allowed and

TAXAP/96/2000HC Gujarat19 Jun 2012
Section 80I

M/S Nahar Poly Film Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/9/2011HC Punjab & Haryana07 Apr 2011
Section 260ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oracle Software India Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 235/2010Supreme Court13 Jan 2010

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 338Section 33BSection 801A(1)Section 801A(12)(b)

Commr.of Income Tax vs. New Delhi Vs M/S Oracle Software India Ltd

C.A. No.-000235-000235 - 2010Supreme Court13 Jan 2010
Section 33BSection 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) & Ors

In the result, we agree with the view taken by the High Court,

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1905/1974Supreme Court29 Mar 1989

Bench: 2 Judges

C.I.T Central, Calcutta vs. National Taj Traders

CIVIL APPEAL No. 171/1973Supreme Court27 Nov 1979

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 2Section 33Section 33BSection 33B(3)Section 4

M/S. Carborandum Co vs. C.I.T., Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 89/1975Supreme Court11 Apr 1977

Bench: 3 Judges

K. L. Varadarajan vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1275/1970Supreme Court05 Nov 1974

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 17Section 17(1)Section 2(8)Section 23Section 34Section 67

Sri Ramamohan Motor Service vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad

CIVIL APPEAL No. 471/1970Supreme Court11 Apr 1973

Bench: 2 Judges

C. I. T. Andhra Pradesh vs. M/S. Vadde Pallaiah & Co

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1682/1970Supreme Court08 Mar 1973

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26ASection 66