Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Rajesh Kr. Drolia, Huf, Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 June, 2010 cites

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 October, 2001

11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee distinguished case laws cited by revenue of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in Vijaya Retreaders (supra), wherein it has been held that tyre-retreading is not production. In the above cases assessees were not the manufacturers of tyres or retread rubber. They were purchasing retread rubber from tyre manufacturers and pasting the same on the worn tyres. As such they were not manufacturers. This decision is non- germane to the present issue. In view of this fact, he stated that repair in assessee's case is after-sale service as all manufacturers universally offer to their customers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

National Engineering Industries Ltd., ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 June, 2001

10. The Ld. Counsel, without prejudice to above arguments and case laws, argued that if at all there are decisions which create doubt, it is a settled law that in case of doubts the construction most beneficial or favourable to assessee should be adopted even if it results in his obtaining a double advantage and if it is a case of considering respective hardships or inconveniences of revenue and assessee, the court should lean in favour of assessee. For this, he referred to decisions of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT v. Shivarudrappa 200 ITR 1, 6 , CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Raj), CIT vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 740 (Del) and CIT vs. International Computers Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 1 (Bom), Central Provinces & Berar Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1946) 14 ITR 479, CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. (1993) 202 ITR 291, Oudh Sugar v. CIT 222 ITR 726, CIT v. Lokmat News Papers Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 199. In view of this, Ld. Counsel stated that cumulative effect of judicial principles clearly indicates contra-indication for the case sought to be made out against assessee and even in the absence of definition of manufacture, liberal construction requires that repair by way of after-sale service as the integral part of manufacture. It is empiric axiom that all manufacturers provide customers using their products' after-sale service, so to construe such after sales service as part of manufacturing activity is quite reasonable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 18 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vijaya Retreaders on 10 August, 2001

11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee distinguished case laws cited by revenue of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in Vijaya Retreaders (supra), wherein it has been held that tyre-retreading is not production. In the above cases assessees were not the manufacturers of tyres or retread rubber. They were purchasing retread rubber from tyre manufacturers and pasting the same on the worn tyres. As such they were not manufacturers. This decision is non- germane to the present issue. In view of this fact, he stated that repair in assessee's case is after-sale service as all manufacturers universally offer to their customers.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1