Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 320 (2.65 seconds)
Documents citing Textile Machinery Corporation ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 25 January, 1977

Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs Dy Cit on 15 January, 2003

8. Section 80-I does not provide that in order to entitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80-1, the new unit must manufacture different articles than being manufactured by the existing unit. The new unit can manufacture the same articles, which are being manufactured by the old unit or the new unit can even manufacture some components/parts which could either be consumed for manufacturing articles by the existing unit or may be sold to outside parties. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Besides, the assessee can also use the same premises/building for installing the plant and machinery of the new unit. It can also use part of the components manufactured by the old unit in its own manufacturing. The only Conditions imposed under section 80-I are that the new undertaking should not be formed by the splitting up or reconstrution of business already in existence, it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, it manufactures or produces articles other than specified in XIth Schedule and the new undertaking employs 10 or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power or employs 20 or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid of power. Nowhere the assessing officer has recorded a finding that the assessee does not fulfil these conditions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that it is not possible to identify as to which particular tractor has been manufactured in the old unit and which tractor has been manufactured in the new unit. These findings are not supported by evidence on record. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the details of the new plant and machinery costing Rs. 36.78 crores installed in the new unit, as to whether these machines were capable of manufacturing tractors independent of the old unit. Besides, the assessee has incurred a cost of Rs. 4.13 crores to the existing building. The fact that the assessee has been allowed depreciation on the new plant and machinery and building would only show that the revenue has accepted the position that these were new additions to the plant and machinery. Coupled with this is the fact of substantial increase in the production capacity from 12,000 units to 25,000 units, The very fact that part of the old machinery was discarded or sold does not mean that the new unit had not come into being. Moreover, the assessee had furnished separate details of the tractors manufactured in the old unit and the new unit. The number of tractors manufactured in the old unit were higher than the number of tractors manufactured in the new unit. The revenue has not found any fault with the working of figures of production shown in the old and new units. On the other hands, if separate details were not possible, the assessee could have shown higher production in the new unit as compared to old unit in order to claim deduction under section 80-I at a higher amount. This fact further shows that the new unit was a separate and independent unit for which it was possible to find out the exact - number of tractors manufactured therein. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I in respect of such unit. Following judgments/decisions relied upon by the learned counsel further support the above view
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 45 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs Assessee on 28 October, 2010

3.4. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily concluding that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [107 ITR 195] (SC) is not applicable in the case of the appellant without considering the actual facts and circumstances and also overlooking the necessary evidence filed by the appellant in the course of impugned assessment proceedings in support of new and independent nature of undertakings owned by the appellant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kakatiya Cements, Sugars And ... vs Assessee on 4 January, 2012

17. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee company under license obtained from APERC commenced a distinct industrial undertaking for the generation of power. It is an undisputed fact that the premises of the undertaking are distinct from the sugar unit. Separate technology is used and loan was also obtained at concessional rate from government agencies like IREDA. The lower authorities are not correct in holding that the power plant was not a distinct unit although all government authorities including the Electricity Regulatory Authority considered it as such. The true principle as laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd., Vs. CIT 21 I.T.A. Nos. 931 & 1051/Hyd/2011 M/s. Kakatiya Cements, Sugars & Industries Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Carborundum Universal Ltd. on 18 April, 1996

5. We have carefully considered the records as well as arguments. None of the facts, as found, by the first appellate authority and reproduced in paragraph 3 supra are specifically contested in the departmental appeals. New machinery capable of producing new types of grinding wheels and abrasives were installed. If the new machinery had produced the same products constituting a substantial expansion, eligibility to relief under section 80J cannot be ruled out as laid down by the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Cit vs M/S American Express India Pvt Ltd on 15 January, 2025

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2025 at 23:01:57 context of the exclusionary clause under Section 15C of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which is similar in its import as the exclusionary clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act - the Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision of the Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT and explained that the emphasis of the Court was on the expression "not formed" and the same was "construed to mean that the undertaking should not be a continuation of the old but emergence of a new unit". The Supreme Court further observed that "the initial exercise, therefore should be to find out if the undertaking was a new one. Once this test is satisfied then clause (i) should be applied reasonably and liberally in keeping with the spirit of Section 15C(1) of the Act".
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Hyderabad Chemicals Limited, ... vs Assessee on 11 March, 2015

13.5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd., vs. CIT (supra), a new unit may produce different products or the same products as in old unit but that cannot be a reason to deny the benefit to the assessee, if the new unit is an independent unit, distinct from the old unit. In the case on hand, the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the denial of deduction to assessee has considered 31 ITA.No.344/H/2012, 561 & 562/H/13 & ITA.No.499/H/2012 Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd., Hyderabad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cit I vs American Express India Pvt Ltd on 15 January, 2025

(iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act - the Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision of the Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT and explained that the emphasis of the Court was on the expression "not formed" and the same was "construed to mean that the undertaking should not be a continuation of the old but emergence of a new unit". The Supreme Court further observed that "the initial exercise, therefore should be to find out if the undertaking was a new one. Once this test is satisfied then clause (i) should be applied reasonably and liberally in keeping with the spirit of Section 15C(1) of the Act".
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next