Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.30 seconds)Income Tax Rules, 1962
Section 80J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
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."
Textile Machinery Corporation ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 25 January, 1977
The relevant extract from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. (supra) is quoted below:-
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.
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.
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 &