Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.35 seconds)Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 5 September, 2001
36. From the perusal of the above description of various processes, list of plant and machinery and packaging process, it is evident that the assessee is certainly involved in the manufacturing of ornamental fishes as such ornamental fishes are only manufactured by the assessee after a number of processes undertaken by it including the sex reversal, which is not at all possible without manufacturing or processing activity. The assessee has also made available the literature in support of above processing activity for manufacturing of ornamental fishes which clearly established the claim of the assessee that it was producing ornamental fishes which are many-fold valuable than the juvenile fishes. Apart from above fact, we have also noted the fact that the above processing activity undertaken by the assessee has not been controverted or rebutted by the learned Departmental Representative and same is also evident from the inspection of such factory premises by this Bench along with the learned Departmental Representative. Considering the above fact, we find that the claim of assessee to have manufacturing ornamental fishes finds support from the ratio of decision relied by learned Authorised Representative and particularly the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd on 24 March, 1999
It has been submitted by the learned Counsel that facts of the case in case of Venkateshwara Hatcheries (supra) are altogether different to the facts involved in the present case as in this case the assessee is not producing or manufacturing the same thing which would have produced or which would have been available without deploying any processing or manufacturing. It has further been contended that once the assessee fulfils all the criteria of 100 per cent export oriented zone and the license has been granted by the Ministry of Commerce, treating the unit of assessee as processing unit, the action of the Revenue in treating the-assessee company as not entitled for the benefit under Section 10B was not correct as the assessee is certainly involved in the manufacturing process of ornamental fishes.
Indian Poultry vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 February, 2001
32. We, after perusing the ratio of decision in the case of Venkateshwara Hatcheries and Ors. (supra) relied on by the AO, find that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Venkateshwara Hatcheries (supra) and Indian Poultry (supra) was regarding rearing of chicks into broilers whereas in the case of Relish Food (supra) the issue was whether processing or cutting of heads and tails of shrimps tantamounts to manufacturing activity or not.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Relish Foods on 16 March, 1989
32. We, after perusing the ratio of decision in the case of Venkateshwara Hatcheries and Ors. (supra) relied on by the AO, find that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Venkateshwara Hatcheries (supra) and Indian Poultry (supra) was regarding rearing of chicks into broilers whereas in the case of Relish Food (supra) the issue was whether processing or cutting of heads and tails of shrimps tantamounts to manufacturing activity or not.