Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.22 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd on 31 May, 2013 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment And Fetting ... on 24 February, 1998

Similarly in the case of CIT v. Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment and Fetting Services (P) Ltd. (No. 1) [1999] 238 ITR 529 (Mad), it was held that the process of heat treatment to crankshaft, etc., were absolutely essential for rendering it marketable. Automobile parts, as crankshafts, need to be subjected to heat treatment to increase the wear and tear resistance to remove the inordinate stress and increased tensile strength. The raw untreated crankshafts and the like can never be used in an automobile industry. Thus, in the crankshafts subjected to the process of heat treatment, etc., a qualitative change is effected, to be fit for use in automobiles, although there is no physical change in them. In such state of affairs, it cannot at all be stated that the crankshaft, subjected to heat treatment, etc., cannot at all change the status of new products of different quality for a different purpose altogether. In this view of the matter, the activities of the assessee in relation to raw or untreated crankshafts being subjected to heat treatment, etc., is definitely a "manufacturing activity" entitling it to claim "investment allowance" under section 32A."
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Ajay Printery Private Ltd. on 17 September, 1965

22. Mr Sahni has also contended that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ajay Printers Pvt. Ltd: (1965) 58 ITR 811 (Guj), which was relied upon by the assessee before the Tribunal, was inapplicable on the facts of the present case as in that case the Court was considering whether the business carried out by the assessee of printing balance sheets, profit & loss accounts, dividend, pamphlets, share certificates, etc., would be a business which consists wholly of manufacture. It was argued that the facts of the said case were distinguishable from the facts of the present case as balance sheets, profit & loss accounts, dividend, pamphlets and share certificates could be considered as final products but printed periodical without binding would not be a marketable product.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 67 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chowgule And Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 3 September, 1985

46. The reliance placed by the revenue on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of A. Mukherjee & Co. (supra) is also, in our view, misplaced. In the said case, the question before the Court was whether a publisher was carrying on manufacturing activity. In that case, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that the assessee did not own a printing press and the job of printing ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 23 of 45 had been outsourced, the job of binding the books was also outsourced to a third party and therefore a publisher would not qualify as a manufacturer. The Court analyzed the business carried on by the assessee which included getting the manuscript for publication, deciding on a suitable format for the book for printing and thereafter, sell the publication in the market. The assessee played an active role in coordinating all activities from the stage of the acquisition of the manuscript to the stage of marketing the books. The Court held that the activities of the assessee amounted to carrying on the activity of manufacturing and also processing of books. It is in this context that the Court observed that the publisher was a manufacturer and the printer was a contractor. We do not think that we can read in this observation of the Calcutta High Court, a decision that printing activity carried on by a press does not amount to manufacturing or producing an article or thing. The fact that activities carried on by a publishing house may amount to manufacture does not ipso facto exclude the activity of printing from the scope of the expression "manufacture or produce an article or thing" as occurring in Section 80-I(2)(iii) of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi on 6 May, 1998

28. The learned counsel for the assessee has also cited the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd.: (2000) 241 ITR 509 (Del), CIT v. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd.: (2009) 311 ITR 389 (Mad), and Ajay Printers (supra). In support of the contention that an industrial undertaking carrying on printing activity would qualify as an industrial undertaking which "manufactures or produces any article or thing".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S.Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd on 30 July, 2007

28. The learned counsel for the assessee has also cited the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd.: (2000) 241 ITR 509 (Del), CIT v. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd.: (2009) 311 ITR 389 (Mad), and Ajay Printers (supra). In support of the contention that an industrial undertaking carrying on printing activity would qualify as an industrial undertaking which "manufactures or produces any article or thing".
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - P P Raja - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Orient Paper Mills Ltd. on 20 January, 1989

30. In the present case, it is not disputed that operations in Unit No.1 ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 16 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd.: (1989) 176 ITR 110 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.: (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC) in support of his contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 25 January, 1977

In the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme court was considering the case of an assessee who was engaged in producing aluminum ingots from ore at four different manufacturing centres. During the relevant previous year, the assessee established another manufacturing centre at a different location and further undertook expansion of the existing centres by setting up additional undertakings at two of the existing centres adjacent to the existing Units.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 105 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, J & K And Ors. vs Pine Chemicals Ltd. And Ors. on 24 October, 1994

In the case of Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals (supra), this court has held that an undertaking employs a worker when it has control over him not only with regard to the work done by him but also over the manner in which work is performed. In the present case, it is an admitted position that more than 10 workers were permanently involved in carrying on the activities in Unit Nos. 2 &
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 57 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next