Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 595 (3.44 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sesa Goa (India) Ltd. And Anr. on 23 August, 2005

The learned Division Bench then relied on the judgment in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (supra) and also placing reliance on Webster's New International Dictionary, for the word 'produce', which is defined to mean 'something that is brought forth or yielded either naturally or as a result of effort and work'. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning given is : 'To bring forward, bring forth or out ; to bring into being or existence'. In Black's Law Dictionary, the expression 'produce' is 'To bring forward; to show or exhibit; to bring into view or notice; to bring to the surface'. Considering the language used and also placing reliance on the provisions of Section 35E of the IT Act, the learned Division Bench noted that 'production of mineral' is used in the allied provisions of the Act itself and it is a definite point that Parliament employed the expression 'production' to the minerals extracted from underneath the surface. For all those reasons, the learned Division Bench took the view that it amounted to 'production'.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.M. Jog Construction Ltd. on 8 September, 2003

The Hon'ble apex Court also observed that the word 'articles' used in Section 80HH(2)(i) cannot comprehend or take within its ambit a dam, a bridge, a building, a road, a canal and so on and accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee in that case for deduction under Section 80HH on income earned from the activity of construction of a dam, In the present case, the assessee-company, however, had executed a contract involving supply, fabrication and erection of dish antennas and such 'dish antenna' being a movable item, constituted 'article' or 'thing' as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budhtiaja & Co. (supra) for the purpose of Section 80-I. It is worthwhile to note here that the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budhiraja & Co. (supra) did not express any opinion on the question of what would be the position if the assessee had claimed the benefit under Section 80HH on the value of the articles manufactured or produced which were used/consumed in the construction of the dam.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Asian Techs Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 July, 1996

17. Learned counsel for the assessee strenuously submits that the anomalous situation has always to be avoided by the court. He pointed out that with regard to the assessment year 1983-84 reference has been called for and, therefore, the said course should be followed by us. Learned counsel also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal did not grant opportunity to the assessee to place the material on record in the light of the observations of the apex court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412, relating to the aspect of deduction with regard to manufacturing some of the Articles like gates, windows, doors which go to the construction and to place material in regard thereto.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Saurabh Stone International, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax

Applying the above tests laid down by this Court in Budharaja's case (supra) to the facts of the present cases, we are of the view that blocks converted into polished slabs and tiles after undergoing the process indicated above certainly results in emergence of a new and distinct commodity. The original block does not remain the marble block, it becomes a slab or tile. In the circumstances, not only there is manufacture but also an activity which is something beyond manufacture and which brings a new product into existence and, therefore, on the facts of these cases, we are of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the activity undertakenbythe respondents-assessees did constitute manufacture or production in terms of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sesa Goa Ltd., Panaji vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 February, 2013

The exemption is available only to manufacture or production. It is not available for processing.‖ Although subsequently this Tribunal has rectified the order under section 254 vide order dated 19th July, 2007 on the application of the assessee and took the view that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10B as the assessee-company itself is extracting the entire iron ore from own mines and mines taken on lease and thereafter processing the same. We cannot look into the finding of the coordinate Bench whether they have correctly interpreted the decision of Supreme Court in 271 ITR 331 or not. The Ld. AR vehemently contended that the decision dt. 12th July, 2007 of this Tribunal in that case got overruled by the decision of this Tribunal vide order dt. 19 th July, 2007 but we do not agree on this with the Ld. AR. We have gone through the order dt. 12th July, 2007 as well as order dt. 19th July, 2007 but we noted that the Tribunal rectified the order as the Tribunal noted the assessee itself was extracting the entire ores and processing the same. Thus, the assessee complied with both the conditions of extracting and processing of iron ore. This Tribunal did not reverse the finding that the processing is not entitled for 148 ITA No. 72&85/PNJ/2012 the exemption. The Tribunal did not reverse the finding that extraction and processing should go together. Even that bench / tribunal did not visualize that 100% EOU is approved for a particular location and its boundry cannot extend beyond that location. It is only the profit derived by the 100% EOU Unit situated within that location, can be regarded to be the profit derived by the 100% EOU. The assessee in that case has taken the mines on lease which were not approved as part of 100% EOU but still the assessee was allowed exemption u/s 10B even though the iron ore extracted from those mines which were taken on lease were not part of the 100% EOU 45.4 No doubt the decision of the coordinate Bench is binding on us in view of the settled judicial principles in the various decisions even relied on by the Ld. CCIT but there are certain exceptions to this cardinal principle of judicial discipline.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

18 The question, however, does not rest there, considering what has been held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the questions which have been raised here. The question there is whether extraction of ore and the various processes would involve "production". The expression "production" again is no longer res Integra, having been considered by the apex court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412. The apex court noted in the said judgment that the word "production" or "produce" when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture" takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. Three High Courts, at least, have taken the view that the extraction of ore would amount to "production".
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 25 - F I Rebello - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next