Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Cit vs Sesa Goa Ltd. on 17 November, 2004
24. Further, Board's Instruction No. 2 of 2009 dated 09/03/2009,
also clarifies that 100% export oriented units are eligible for
deduction u/s 10B of the Act if they are certified by Development
Commissioners. There is no dispute to the fact that assessee has
been certified by the Development Commissioner. Therefore,
considered in the aforesaid context and applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.
(supra) we are of the view that CIT(A) has correctly held that the
assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. So far as
decisions relied upon by the learned DR are concerned, both of them
are found to be factually distinguishable and do not apply to the facts
of the present case.
Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
V.M. Salgaocar And Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 December, 1999
In case of B.M. Salgaonkar Brothers Vs.
CIT(supra), the Honb'le Karnataka High court while considering
assessee's entitlement to deduction u/s 80J found that the plant on
which deduction was claimed was for sizing and washing of iron ore.
Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that since there is no
manufacture or production of new article or thing deduction cannot be
allowed. However, in the present case, assessee is engaged in the
mining as well as processing activity. It not only extracts iron ore from
beneath the earth but also converts it to a specific grade through
certain processes. Therefore, certainly assessee can be considered
to be engaged in production of article or thing.
Section 32A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deccan Cements Ltd. vs Deputy Cit on 28 February, 2002
So far as the decision
of Hon'ble Jurisdictional high Court in case of Deccan Cements Vs.
CIT (supra) is concerned, there the issue before the Hon'ble High
court was claim of deduction u/s 80HH in respect of the cement
manufacturing activity. The Hon'ble High court, therefore, held that
cement manufacturing activity and mining of lime stone are two
different and distinctive activities, hence, mining of lime stone cannot
be considered as part of manufacturing of cement. Further, sub-
section (10) of section 80HH specifically excludes mining activities
from availing deduction. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court
keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision held that assessee
is not entitled for benefit u/s 80HH. Whereas, there is no such
15
ITA Nos. 256 to 261/Hyd/20 12
M/s Siva Shankar Miner als Ltd.
Section 7 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. on 9 March, 1977
"9.7 Considering the ratios of the judicial decisions as referred
above and relevance of the same to the facts of the case
involved, I am inclined to conclude that appellant is eligible for
deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act on the profits related to the
export of the iron ore. By virtue of the process / production of
iron ore which also involves the activities that make the 100%
EOUs eligible for the deductions u/s lOB, as enumerated in
some of the judicial decisions referred above, the appellant is
eligible for the deductions u/s 10B of the I.T.Act, 1961, though
the said decisions are not entirely on the subject of deduction
u/s 10B for export of iron ore. What is applicable to this case is
the ratio of the decisions where the word 'production' is
distinguished from 'manufacture' and in this case the word
'production' is applicable, and the word 'produce' connote wider
meaning compared to the word 'manufacture', which was
heavily relied upon by the Assessing Officer, while negating the
claims of the appellant.