Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, ... vs Addl Cit Rg 1(1), Mumbai on 9 October, 2019
1. Vinbros & Co Ltd. v/s ITO 110 ITD185
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)Documents citing
Vinbros And Company vs Income Tax Officer on 23 February, 2007
Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 March, 2012
The ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim for deduction
u/s 80IB of the Act to the assessee by following the decision of
Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Vinbros & Co. (supra)
and the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment
year 2005-06. The ld. DR has merely supported the order of the
Assessing Officer. He has not filed any material before us to show that
the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has been varied in appeal
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, we find that the Chennai 'B'
Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year
2005-06 has allowed the claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act to
the assesse. We, therefore, do not find any good and justifiable
reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is confirmed.
The ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Jumbo Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 2 May, 2012
62. Vinbros and Co. v. ITO (297 ITR (AT) 280) (Chenn)
Acit, Circle - 41, Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S. Anmol Textiles,, Kolkata on 17 April, 2018
In the decision reported in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court
observed "It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw
or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations
whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new
and different article 'then it would amount to manufacturing activity". Thus the Apex
Court pointec out that if the commodity can no longer be regarded as the original
commodity but instead is recognized as a new and distinct article, then the activity of
manufacture can be said to take place.
1