Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
7. The import of the expression 'processing' can be better understood by referring to the
decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the said expression occurring in the taxing
enactments. In the case of Delhi Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 6561, the
Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the assessee-company running a
cold storage could be held to be an industrial company for the purposes of section 2(7)(c) of
the Finance Act, 1973. An industrial company has been defined to mean a company which is
mainly engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and other activities specified
therein. The question was whether the cold storage of the appellant can be said to be engaged
in the processing of goods? The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative for the
reason that the stored articles cannot be said to have undergone a process mainly because
there was reduction of moisture content as a result of long storage. At the same time, the
Supreme Court observed that processing "is a term of wide amplitude and has various aspects
and meanings". It was pointed out that in common parlance 'processing' is understood as an
action which brings forth some change or alteration of the goods or material which is
subjected to the act of processing. Another case which deserve reference is the case of
Chowgule & Co. (P).
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124. The three-judge Bench of
Supreme Court held that the blending of iron-ore in the course of loading through the
mechanical ore handling plant amounted to processing of ore within the meaning of section
8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the mechanical ore handling plant fell within the
description of machinery, plant, equipment used in the processing of ore for sale. The
following pertinent observations were made while explaining the connotation of the word
'processing' :
Sri Om Prakas Gupta vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 17 May, 1965
". . .The nature and extent of processing may vary from case to case; in one case the
processing may be slight and in another it may be extensive; but with each process
suffered, the commodity would experience a change. Wherever a commodity
undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it,
such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. The nature and extent
of the change is not material. It may be that camphor powder may just be compressed
into camphor cubes by application of mechanical force or pressure without addition
or admixture of any other material and yet the operation would amount to processing
of camphor powder as held by the Calcutta High Court in Sri Om Prakas Gupta v.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1965] 16 STC 935. What is necessary in order
to characterize an operation as processing is that the commodity must, as a result of
the operation, experience some change. Here, in the present case, diverse quantities
of ore possessing different chemical and physical compositions are blended together
to produce ore of the requisite chemical and physical compositions demanded by the
foreign purchaser and obviously as a result of this blending, the quantities of ore
mixed together in the course of loading through the mechanical ore handling plant
experience change in their respective chemical and physical compositions, because
what is produced by such blending is ore of a different chemical and physical
composition. When the chemical and physical composition of each kind of ore which
goes into the blending is changed, there can be no doubt that the operation of
blending would amount to 'processing' of ore within the meaning of section 8(3)(b)
and rule 13...." (p. 131)
Earlier, it was observed that the blending of different qualities of ore did not amount to
manufacture.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) on 28 March, 2017
There is no double
deduction as such, and the activity of all the related units involved in the chain of activities
involving fruit processing is fruit processing activity. In our considered view, the deduction
under section 80IB(11A) is admissible for the assessee even though the assessee was engaged
ITA No.: 1209/Ahd/18
Assessment year: 2013-14
Page 7 of 7
in only a part, though integral part, of the whole process of processing fruit from the basic
stage to the end consumption stage. As regards learned PCIT's analysis about strict
interpretation of exemption provisions, and reliance on Novopan decision (supra) on this
issue, it is not really relevant inasmuch as the provision that we are dealing with is an
incentive provision for deduction- not exemption. There is a qualitative difference between
exemption and deduction provisions, and these expressions cannot be used interchangeable as
the learned PCIT has chosen to do. The exception, laid down in Littman v. Barron 1952 (2)
AIR 393 and followed by apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy.
Commr. of CCT [1992] Suppl.
Section 8 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Essar Oil Ltd. & Anr on 17 January, 2012
A reference was then made to Hon'ble Supreme Court's
judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Essar Oil Limited [2012-TIOL-05-SC-CT]
wherein the same principle was reiterated.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ito, New Delhi vs M/S. Jaidka Woolen & Hossiery Mills P ... on 1 October, 2018
He also referred to, and extensively reproduced
from, judicial precedents in the cases of Goetze India Ltd [(2014) 361 ITR 505(Del)], CIT Vs
Ashok Logani [(2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del)] and Rajlakshmi Mills Ltd Vs ITO [(2009) 121 ITD
SB 343 (Chennai)]. It was thus concluded that the assessment order in question was passed,
inter alia, "without considering the above facts which show that deduction under section
80IB is not allowable". The assessment order was thus set aside, and the Assessing Officer
was asked to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law after taking into account all
the relevant facts and after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
However, as the PCIT had, after an elaborate analysis, already given a conclusive finding on
non applicability of deduction under section 80IB(11A), in effect, the matter was remitted to
the file of the Assessing Officer for withdrawal of the deduction already granted under
section 80IB(11A).