Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Others(And Vice Versa) on 25 November, 1980

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Eastern Acquatic Traders on 21 September, 1983

7. The test that is required to be applied in the present case is to see whether the processing of frog legs has brought into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity. Even if the from legs have undergone some process, can they be regarded as commercially new and distinct commodity ? Here the decision of the Supreme Court in Chowgule & Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India does not support the stand taken by the Revenue. On the other hand it supports the view taken by the Tribunal that the frog legs, even after the process, have not been converted into a commercially different commodity.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shree Mulchand Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Or Income-Tax on 31 October, 1985

After analysing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , and on other decision, the Calcutta High Court observed (at p. 394) that in view of these decisions where any commodities subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market", as, for example, of sorting and repacking fruits and vegetables, it would amount processing of the commodity within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the aforesaid case, the Calcutta High Court held that the assessee, who carried on the business of purchasing tea of different qualities, blending the same by mixing one type with another and selling it, was entitled to be considered as an "industrial company" within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sesa Gao Ltd, Goa vs Department Of Income Tax on 6 September, 2013

The ITAT concluded at pg. 135 in its order that in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. UOI (1981) 1 SCC 653 (supra) it can be held that the Assessee is engaged in these units in manufacturing. It was contended that this Tribunal has given a finding on the basis of the facts involved in the case of the Assessee and after appreciating the various case laws. The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to review its order. Thus, there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Sesa Goa as referred to by the Revenue has held that the entire processing chain is not manufacturing but it held that mining ore or extraction of ore is production. The Hon'ble High Court further held that the legislation being beneficial piece of legislation, an expanded meaning can be given as given in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 55 (Bom.) In respect of the erroneous presumption of dismantling of the old plant, it was pointed out that the CIT(A) vide para 10.7 at pg. 48-49 of his order held that since there was no deletion of the block value of the machinery and equipment previously used in Amona plant, the old plant was not discarded or old plant was not dismantled. This issue has therefore undoubtedly been raised by the Assessee before the CIT(A). Further, it was pointed out on the basis of the documents furnished in the paper book before the lower authorities that this issue was before the lower authorities. In respect of ground no. 5 in this Miscellaneous Application, it was pointed out that the Tribunal has given a finding on fact at para 45.21 at pg. 166 of its order. The Department‟s apprehension regarding some purchases not being not at arm‟s length price has categorically been taken care of by the Tribunal. It was further contended that when appeal had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court, the Special Bench, ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Tata 6 MA NO. 10/PNJ/2013 (arising out of ITA No. 85/PNJ/2012) (ASST.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Bhavani Minerals, Panaji vs Assessee on 22 August, 2013

43.13 The crux of the submissions of the Ld. special Counsel for the department is that the assessee is engaged in these 100% export oriented units only in processing of iron ore and by processing it get it upgraded for export, therefore it is not entitled for exemption u/s 10B does not have any leg to stand in view of the decision of Kerala High Court (supra), Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co(supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramacanta Velingkar Minerals., Panaji vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 April, 2014

43.13 The crux of the submissions of the Ld. special Counsel for the department is that the assessee is engaged in these 100% export oriented units only in processing of iron ore and by processing it get it upgraded for export, therefore it is not entitled for exemption u/s 10B does not have any leg to stand in view of the decision of Kerala High Court (supra), Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co(supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.D. Shah And Brothers vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 2005

72. We may notice here that apart from the fact that decision was rendered in the particular interpretation taken by the Karnataka High Court on the combined reading of the two notifications issued under the Karnataka Sales-tax Act, it refers to Chowgule's case (supra) for supporting its conclusions while considering the question whether blending of different teas amounts to manufacture.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Narendra Tea Co. (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs Assessee on 24 April, 2012

21. Therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in construing the expression "processing" allowed the appeal of the assessee, in Chowgule & Co (P) Ltd supra, holding, inter alia, that where any commodity is subject to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market" it would amount to processing of the commodity within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, did not consider the expression "manufacture" since the question was decided only on the expression "processing". However, considering the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nilgiri Tea Co [1959] 10 STC 500, Hon' ble Supreme Court observed that, for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to a formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of the different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of a qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into existence was of a quality and flavour from the different brands of tea which went into the mixture.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asst.C.I.T., Bellary vs M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, Bellary on 19 January, 2018

allowed the appeal of the assessee, in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), holding, inter alia, that where any commodity is subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market" it would amount to processing of the commodity within the meaning of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Special Bench ultimately allowed exemption to the assessee on the similar issue where the assessee was engaged in the business of blending the tea for upgrading for marketing. Thus, in view of the decision of the Special Bench and other decisions ITA Nos.20/B/15 & 32/B/16 CO No.55/B/16 53 discussed in the preceding paragraphs and that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & co (supra) as well as definition of manufacture as inserted w.e.f 1.4.2009 by way of section 2 (29AB) of the Income Tax Act as referred to by both the parties, we hold that all the three 100% EOU engaged in processing so as to make crude ore and waste i.e tailings usable or marketable are entitled for exemption u/s 10B subject to the other conditions for exemption under section 10B are being fulfilled."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next