Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Orient Paper Mills Ltd. on 20 January, 1989

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 August, 2007

87. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned CIT-Departmental Representative that the new unit should also be self-supporting one in the commercial sense. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. , which has been affirmed by the apex Court CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. . In that case, the assessee set up a unit for manufacture of caustic soda which was an essential chemical for use in the process of manufacture of paper, an existing activity carried on by the assessee. The entire production of caustic soda was consumed by the assessee in the existing process of manufacturing of paper and no part of it was sold. The assessee claimed the deduction under Section 15C of the 1922 Act which was disallowed on the ground that new plant was ancillary to the existing units. The Tribunal allowed the claim of assessee and the High Court as well as the apex Court upheld the view of the Tribunal. This shows that the claim of assessee cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that there is no generation of revenue by the unit itself. The profit can always be computed by attributing the appropriate amount equal to the fair market value of goods or services produced/provided by the new unit. On the contrary, in the present case, there is generation of income which is identifiable with reference to each call made through the earth station. The charge for each call is predetermined and can be quantified. Therefore, this contention of the learned Departmental Representative is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 44 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 April, 2006

Now the question is whether the assessee's claim for deduction Under Section 80-IA of the Act could be denied merely on the ground that these D. G. Units were catering to the captive 1 power requirement. As the Assessing Officer puts it, if the assessee has not realized any revenue by selling the power to outsiders, can the assessee be held to be entitled for deduction Under Section 80-IA of the Act9 The Assessing Officer was of the view that it is only an inter-division transfer and there was no revenue realized by it and consequently there was no derivation of profit or income in the business of industrial undertaking. The question raised by the Assessing Officer have all been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. 176 ITR 110 This decision of the Supreme Court does not bring out the facts. It has only affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. 94 ITR 73. The facts could only be found in this judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The assessee in that case owned a paper mill. It set up a plant for the manufacture of caustic soda. an essential chemical for use in the process of manufacture of paper. The assessee obtained a separate licence for the manufacture of caustic soda and the plant was housed in a separate building. The Income Tax Officers in that case held that the caustic soda plant was ancillary to the main manufacturing unit and no part of caustic soda was sold to any outsider and therefore no relief could be claimed by the assessee Under Section 15 C of the 1922 Act. The material produced in the plant was used for captive consumption. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the revenue that the language used in Section 15 C was "profit and gain derived from an industrial undertaking". Unless the profits arose by the sale of the product of the new plant. no profit could be said to have been derived The argument was that profit should be directly derived and not indirectly or deemed to be derived. The Tribunal did not accept these submissions of the revenue and proceeded to grant the relief.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 29 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Ifgl Refractories Ltd vs Orissa State Financial Corporation on 6 January, 2026

73. Adverting now to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the expression “new industrial unit” in Clause 2.7 of industrial policy of 1989 is defined solely with reference to the timing of the investment made in a particular fixed capital. In essence, where any fixed capital investment is made after the effective date, i.e., 01.12.1989, the unit in which such investment is made is to be treated as a new industrial unit. This would imply that if a company already in existence prior to the effective date makes a post effective date investment in fixed capital for setting up another unit, the latter would qualify as a new industrial unit. If our inquiry were to conclude at this point, there would be little doubt that the MM Plant unit satisfies the definition of a new industrial unit, as the fixed capital investment in its establishment was made after the effective date. However, in our considered view, a further inquiry becomes necessary i.e., whether the unit so invested in is genuinely a new industrial unit or merely an expansion of the existing unit masquerading as a new one. For such determination, reliance can be placed on various tests prescribed by the courts as mentioned above particularly in Textile Machinery (supra) and Indian Special Civil Petition (C) No. 7013 of 2019 Page 59 of 122 Aluminium (supra) and later affirmed in Bajaj Tempo (supra), Orient Papers (supra), and Gujarat Alkalies (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vasu Pharma Distributors,, Hyderabad vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 October, 2022

8. He submitted that the closing stock of FY 2008-09 has been taken as the opening stock of FY 2009-10 and therefore, in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he could not have reopened the assessment. Referring to a series of decisions, he submitted that in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he cannot reopen the assessment, especially when there is no other discrepancy or addition on account of which the case was reopened. He submitted that when the closing stock of FY 2008- 09 has been shown as the opening stock of FY 2009-10, there is absolutely no error for which the AO could have reopened the assessment. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the reopening is not valid i.Madhurai Power Corporation vs.DCIT reported in 428 ITR 117 (Ap.HC) ii.CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (Del.Hc) iv.CIT vs. Atul kumar Swami reported in 362 ITR 693 (Del.HC) 6 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 v. Pr.CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 vi. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 001(Del.HC) vii.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunrise Metal Industries vs Income-Tax Officer on 21 November, 2002

v) CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. 176 ITR 110 (SC) With regard to the decisions relied upon by the ld.counsel of the assessee,the ld.DR submitted that the assessee could not have effectively supervised the hot rolling activity got done on job work basis as the job work was done by more than 10 concerns. The ld.DR again emphasized that deduction Under Section 80IA is intended to be given in a specified area for generation of employment. Hence according to the ld.DR, the factories of the concerns doing hot rolling activities should have been located in the backward area (i.e.Daman) and this being not the case in the instant case, deduction Under Section 80IA is not admissible to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next