Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.32 seconds)Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Others(And Vice Versa) on 25 November, 1980
5.10 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) heavily relied upon by the Revenue is also distinguishable on facts of the case. In that case, the Supreme Court was never concerned about the meaning of the word 'production'. The only question with which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned was whether the activity of blending of various types of ores constituted an activity of manufacturing or processing. That case arose under the provisions of Central ST Act, 1956. According to s. 8 of that Act, the assessee was entitled to purchase plant and machinery on the concessional rate of tax if such machinery was required to be used in the activity of mining or manufacture. The assessee applied to the STO for inclusion of 36 items of goods in the certificate of registration on the ground that these items of goods were required for use in mining ore and processing activity. The STO allowed some of the items and the remaining items were disallowed on the ground that those were not required either for mining activities or for manufacturing activities. On representation, the revisional authority held that the process of mining ended with stacking of ore at the mining site after extraction, washing, screening and dressing. Since according to him, the balance items were required for the purpose of blending of ore, he confirmed the order of the STO as the activity of blending did not amount to manufacture. The dispute ultimately reached upto the Supreme Court. It is in this context that the Supreme Court decided the issue. The Supreme Court was not concerned with the first six activities as they formed part of mining activities. It was only whether the single activity of blending of ore could be treated as manufacturing activity. In this connection, it was held that what was produced as a result of blending was commercially the same articles, viz., ore though with different specification than the ore which is blended. However, the Supreme Court further held that this activity was a processing activity. However, in the present case we are not concerned whether the activity amounts to manufacture or not. We are only concerned with the question whether the integrated activities carried on by the assessee amount to production of iron ore or not. Therefore, in our opinion, the said decision is distinguishable.
Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 849 (Kar) : (1996) 217 ITR 849 (Kar). He was at great pains to submit that no commercial commodity was brought by the assessee different from what was embedded in the earth.
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
It was also submitted by him that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. C. Budharaja & Co. (supra) has been considered by various High Courts and still those Courts have allowed the investment allowance in respect of mining activity.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lucky Mineral Pvt. Ltd. on 27 February, 1996
In support of his contention, he relied on various decisions, viz., CTO vs. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. (1986) 61 STC 264 (Raj), CIT vs. Lucky Minerals (P) Ltd. (1996) 87 Taxman 215 (Raj), State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. M. Natarajan (1981) 48 STC 315 (Mad). He also brought to our notice the provisions of Expln. to s. 45 of the WT Act. According to him, mining activity has been separately mentioned in addition to the manufacture and processing. So, it could not be said that manufacturing and mining was the same thing.
Christian Mica Industries Ltd. vs State Of Bihar on 9 March, 1972
5.8 Let us consider this issue also in the light of the case law referred to by the parties. The issue whether the word 'production' would take within its ambit the activity of mining is, in our opinion, covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that processing of mining mica is a process of production. In that case, sale of mica produced or manufactured in the State of Bihar was chargeable to tax under the provisions of Bihar ST Act. Since the assessee was engaged in the processing of producing of mica from mines, sales of mica produced by the assessee was held to be taxable by the STO. However, the Board of Revenue held that process of mining mica could not be said to be a process of production or manufacture. The dispute ultimately reached upto the Supreme Court. In the absence of any definition of production in the Bihar ST Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the dictionary meaning of the word 'production' as appealing in Oxford English Dictionary which is reproduced as under :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd., India ... on 21 September, 1994
In support of his contention, he relied on various decisions, viz., CIT vs. Mercantile Construction Co. (1994) 74 Taxman 41 (Cal), Empire Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 162 ITR 846 (SC), CIT vs. Singareni Collieries Co. (1997) 90 Taxman 185 (AP), CIT vs. Best Chem & Limestone Industries (P) Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 883 (Raj), ITO vs. G. N. Agrawal (HUF) (1993) 44 ITD 332 (Pn), Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 26 ITD 221 (Hyd).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. on 9 March, 1977
Recently, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Singareni Collieries Co. (supra) had to consider this issue. The issue before the Court was whether the winning or excavating coal could be considered as an activity of production.
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
5.2 For this purpose, one has to ascertain the meaning of the word 'production' used by the legislature in cl. (b) of s. 32A(2). In order to ascertain the meaning of the word 'production' used in s. 32A one must know the context in which it is used. The word 'may' have different meanings and what meaning has been attributed to the word can be known only from the context. Reference may be made to the following observations of their Lordships of the apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424 :
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992
5.3 There is another aspect of the matter. The provisions of s. 32A being beneficial provisions are to be construed liberally as held by the apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC). The following observations of their Lordships are noteworthy :