Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 October, 2017

Saurabh Stone International, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax

While discussing the facts of the case of M/s Lucky Minmat Pvt Ltd. Vs CIT (supra), it has been pointed out by the authorized representative that the nature of the activity of the assessee as mentioned in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India is that "the assessee had business of mining of limestone and marble blocks and thereafter cutting and sizing the same before being sold in the market." As per the authorized representative, in the case of the appellant, it carried out further processing after "cutting" the rough kotah stone into tiles i.e. "edge-cutting"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Laxmi Stone Crushers Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

"12. We, after having going through the chart of process of production placed at page 5/PB are of the view that this process of production amounts to manufacturing inasmuch as in this case also the original commodity boulders could not be used for building/ road purpose as such until it is broken into small pieces i.e, grits to be used as building/road material. It is only by the process of breaking the boulders into grits that it is made marketable. The boulders cannot be used for the same purpose as the grits can be used and after boulders have been broken into grits, the end product by putting it simultaneously cannot be used as a boulder. The boulder as a mineral produced/ excavated from riverbed or by blasting rocks by itself is not usable for any purpose, therefore, to make it usable, various processes which could not be applied to bring it to that stage would amount to manufacturing. Obviously so far as physical characteristic of boulders and grits may have same physical properties i.e., stone. Thus, keeping in view the decision in the case of Arihant Tiles Marbles (P) Ltd. (supra), Kores India Ltd. (supra) and Mysore Mineral Ltd. (supra). We hold that the assessee is engaged in the activity of manufacture or produce of article or thing and as such, entitle to deduction u/s 80IB. Hence, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zeepelin Mobile System (India) Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

7.3 The second issue is whether the activity of the appellant can be said to be manufacturing or not. The A.O. has relied upon the decision in the case of Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT. However, the said decision has been rendered on a different set of facts and process. The appellant fills rightly pointed out that in case of Lucky Minmat, even after mining or cutting limestone and marble, the end product remains same commodity as commercially known and mere is no change in its character or its use and based on such reasoning, it was not treated as manufacture. In the appellant's case, however, it uses various raw materials as listed in its submissions like panels made of steel or aluminium sheets, GI coils, PVC rolls, GI / aluminum coils and skid clamps and many such materials are used to provide a weather proof shelter and once the telecom shelter is prepared, one can not recognize the panels, skid and screws etc. used to prepare the shelters .The final product is known as Telecom Shelter, which is not the same as materials used. The final product is a distinct marketable commodity and it has a separate market of its own. In this regard I would like to hold that the process carried out by the appellant is assembling of different raw materials which are also changed in its shape in the process of assembling. The resultant product of the appellant is a specialized product for the specific industry like telecom service providers' industry which is in itself a highly specialized and technical industry. Such industry visualizes the final product of the appellant with certain utilities specific to its requirements which it could never have been able to fulfill on its own. The correct issue to be addressed is whether such activity of shaping up the final product is manufacture or not.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.P. Stone Crusher (P) Ltd, Haldwani vs Department Of Income Tax

"12. We, after having going through the chart of process of production placed at page 5/PB are of the view that this process of production amounts to manufacturing inasmuch as in this case also the original commodity boulders could not be used for building/ road purpose as such until it is broken into small pieces i.e, grits to be used as building/road material. It is only by the process of breaking the boulders into grits that it is made marketable. The boulders cannot be used for the same purpose as the grits can be used and after boulders have been broken into grits, the end product by putting it simultaneously cannot be used as a boulder. The boulder as a mineral produced/ excavated from riverbed or by blasting rocks by itself is not usable for any purpose, therefore, to make it usable, various processes which could not be applied to bring it to that stage would amount to manufacturing. Obviously so far as physical characteristic of boulders and grits may have same 6 ITA NO. 3872/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 physical properties i.e., stone. Thus, keeping in view the decision in the case of Arihant Tiles Marbles (P) Ltd. (supra), Kores India Ltd. (supra) and Mysore Mineral Ltd. (supra). We hold that the assessee is engaged in the activity of manufacture or produce of article or thing and as such, entitle to deduction u/s 80IB. Hence, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxmi Srijan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 29 March, 2023

and simply harped on the theory of circumstantial evidences which is not correct in case of income tax proceedings. In the present case before us, we find that the assessee has filed all the evidences qua share capital/share premium however authorities have failed to carry out further enquiry into the matter and also did not point out any defects or deficiency in the evidences filed by the assesse. Besides mere non-attendance or non-compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act cannot be a ground for making addition to the income of the assesse where the assessee has filed all the evidences as called for by the AO. We note that the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Jannani Holdings on 4 August, 2021

12.The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- Page 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.230 of 2010, 279 of 2011 & 563 of 2014 Tax, Jaipur, reported in (2000) 245 ITR 830 (SC) to support her submissions that, mining of limestones and marble blocks and thereafter cutting and sizing the same, would not amount to process of manufacture.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Indian Garnet Sand Co. Pvt. L:Td., ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 5 June, 2018

9. The appellant company has placed reliance on the order of my predecessor CIT(Appeals)(supra). The Department preferred appeal against the order. The ld. Chennai Tribunal in its order in ITA Nos.1104, 1105 & 1106/Mds/2015 dated 20.01.2016 has remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration. Hence the order of CIT(Appeals) relied upon by the appellant does not stand today."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. M.Kantilal & Co. , Kolkata vs Ito, Ward-36(1), Kol, Kolkata on 31 August, 2023

The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner, in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. It is also ruled in the said judgment at page 465 that if the Tribunal does not discharge the duty in the manner as above then it shall be assumed the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest infirmity.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next