Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mysore Minerals Ltd. on 17 August, 2000

R.A.M. Earth Movers (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 March, 2002

We find that this case has now been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 301 (SC). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance was allowable on the machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them was a question of law and the decision of the Karnataka High Court was reversed. Therefore, this objection of the learned authorised representative also fails.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mysore Minerals Ltd. on 7 December, 2000

10. For the reasons stated above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that the Supreme Court in N. C. Budharaja and Co.'s case did not overrule the decision of this court in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 461. Appeal dismissed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - A Bhan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sesa Goa Ltd., D.B. Bandodkar And Sons ... on 16 July, 2003

The criticism against this judgment is that this judgment relied upon an earlier judgment in the case of Mysore Minerals, which has been reversed by the apex court in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 301, and as such would no longer be a good law. Considering that aspect, we do not propose to consider the ratio of the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 25 - F I Rebello - Full Document

R.A.M. Earth Movers (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2002

5. We have heard the rival parties. We have also considered their submissions. In this case the CIT found from the perusal of the record that the assessee derived income by way of receipt from job work of open cast gypsum mining for the Rajasthan State Metals and Minerals Corporation (for short RSMMC). The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 4,88,238 @ 20 per cent of the cost of plant and machinery purchased/acquired during the year under consideration. The AO did not examine the allowability of the claim in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and his order is silent on this aspect which implied that the claim of investment allowance had been allowed. Since the enquiry which ought to have been conducted, had not been done, the order was considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further, being a job work, it was not the assessee's business to manufacture or produce any article or thing nor it is so in the case of open cast mining activity and under these circumstances the order passed by the AO was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the CIT. While passing the order on merit the CIT has also made a reference to the case of CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar) (supra) which was not accepted by the Department and SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned authorised representative had contended that there was patent and glaring mistake of fact and law only on the basis of the observation of this Bench in para 13 on p. 6 of the order. We find that there is no mistake of law and facts in the order of the Tribunal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suraj Marbles (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer [Alongwith Ita Nos. ... on 18 August, 2006

...In order to find out whether a particular activity is manufacturing activity or not it has to be observed that there should be an action or process of making an article by application of physical or mechanical labour and the product must be commercially new or different article. Manufacturing results in alteration or change in the nature of the goods which are subjected to process. Granite blocks are converted into slabs and cut into sizes and thereafter polished. It is not the same commodity, i.e., the block. This matter was examined in the case of the assessee in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. and it was held that the assessee is an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A. In view of the decision given in the case of the assessee we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the original assessment which granted the relief under Sections 32A and 80-1 to the assessee was not erroneous and the inference of the CIT under Section 263 was not proper.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Mithy Granite (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 October, 2003

7. Sri Prasad and Sri Sarangan challenging the correctness of the impugned order made two submissions. Firstly, they submitted that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the benefit of Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC of the Act would not be available to the assessees in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of Section 80HHC as the goods exported by the assessees were minerals is totally erroneous in law. According to learned counsel, since the goods they have exported are cut and polished minerals, the same ceased to be a "mineral" within the meaning of Section 80HHC(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In support of their submission they referred to us the circular dated May 22, 1984, issued by the Central Government of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the CBDT"), wherein the Central Board of Direct Taxes had clarified that the export of cut and polished diamonds cannot be construed as "mineral" to deprive the benefit granted under Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC. They also pointed out that the Division Bench of this court in the case CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (No. 2) [2001] 250 ITR 728 relying upon the said Board Circular dated May 22, 1984, has taken the view that the export of cut and polished granites would be qualified for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. It is also their submission that the circular of the Board being binding on the parties under the Act, it is not permissible for the authorities to take a plea contrary to the circular issued by the Board.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - P V Shetty - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next