Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 62 (0.35 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 2 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2020
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gem India Manufacturing Co. on 5 December, 2000
He also distinguished another case cited by
15 ITA 1305/K/2008 Rajesh Kr. Drolia A.Y.05-06
revenue of Gem India Manufacturing Co. (supra) where cutting and polishing diamond was
held as not amounting to manufacture or production. This case is also not applicable to the
assessee because the assessee is admittedly a manufacturer of moulds.
Finance Act, 1999
Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 April, 1978
(iii) We have considered the case laws relied on by both the sides noted and discussed, but
we find that the provision of section 80-IB of the Act is in pari materia with the provisions of
section 80HH and 80I of the Act, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in Sterling Food, Pandian
Chemicals Ltd. and Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) has discussed the
expression in the context of these sections that the use of expression profits and gains derived
from an industrial undertaking, there is distinction between the expressions 'derived from' and
'attributable to'. Hon'ble Apex Court held that only such business profits that have a direct
nexus to the essential business activity of the assessee can qualify for deduction under section
80HH of the Act. Inasmuch as both sections 80HH and 80-I use the expression "profits and
gains derived from an industrial undertaking", the burden is on the assessee to show that the
income earned from an activity, the profits from which are claimed to qualify for deduction,
has an immediate and direct nexus to the essential activity of the industrial undertaking. Hence,
our answer to first question referred is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80-IB on
income earned from job work charges but excluding repairs and maintenance charges. Our
answer to second question referred is that the income from repair and maintenance cannot be
treated at par with the income from manufacturing for the purposes of deduction u/s. 80-IB of
the Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment And Fetting ... on 24 February, 1998
He drew support from CIT v. Tamil Nadu Treatment Testing Services (P) Ltd.
238 ITR 529(Mad), wherein it is held therein that giving heat treatment to toughen the
untreated crankshafts and forgings and castings for use in automobiles is manufacturing though
there occurs no physical change through operations. Ld. Counsel for assessee argued that
because of preponderance of judicial view of manufacture on own account and on job work as
on a parity, revenue has raised this issue that job work indeed represents after sale repair work
and contests the eligibility for exemption to the extent income represents income from such
repair allegedly to pass off as job work. He argued that, of late, there has been a legislative
development. Now a definition of the word "manufacture" which is determinant of issues in the
case has been carved out and emergence of the definition alters the scenario. He stated that
until recently nowhere in Section 80 IA or 80 IB of the Act and, for that matter, in the Act, no
definition of the word 'manufacture' was available. The absence of definition of the word was
not by chance but by design to leave the word to its widest amplitude possible consonant with
incentive nature of benefits of deduction/exemption under various sections hinging on
manufacture as the central condition precedent. According to him, this proved to be prone to
dispute and thus counter-productive. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Export Import
Policy 2002 to 2007 (hereinafter Exim policy for short), whereby manufacture is defined in
Chapter DC, which is as follows:
M/S Girnar Industries vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 August, 2009
He also referred to
another decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, viz., Girnar Industries Vs. CIT (2010) 230
CTR (Ker) 401, (2010) 187 Taxman 136, wherein it took the view that in the absence of
definition of "manufacture" in 10A of the Act, aid can be taken from its definition in Section
10AA of the Act. Ld. Counsel finally argued that since definition of "manufacture" in Section
10AA of the Act includes repair as one of the parameters of the expression "manufacture", it is
only fair, reasonable and irresistible that repair should also be taken as a parameter of
"manufacture" for the purpose of Section 80-IB of the Act. There is nothing in the object of
Section 80-IB of the Act, which can be said to be repugnant to the object of Section 10AA of
the Act. Both provisions stand on equation in regard to the basic nature of the objects, i.e.,
growth of industry - one, for the purpose of export development and the other for the purpose
of removing the pockets of industrial backwardness of the national economy. So, they are
public interest provisions and fundamentally marked by a common trait of betterment of
national economy.