Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)

Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 October, 2017

12.The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- Page 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.230 of 2010, 279 of 2011 & 563 of 2014 Tax, Jaipur, reported in (2000) 245 ITR 830 (SC) to support her submissions that, mining of limestones and marble blocks and thereafter cutting and sizing the same, would not amount to process of manufacture.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - A Bose - Full Document

Bansal Ispaat (Lucknow) (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 September, 1996

The assessee in that case had the business of mining of limestones and marble blocks which thereafter were cut and sized before being sold in the market. It was held by this Court Page 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.230 of 2010, 279 of 2011 & 563 of 2014 that the assessee was essentially in the business of mining of limestone. It was held that the activity of excavation will not constitute manufacture or production. It was further held that even the activity of cutting and sizing of marble blocks after excavation would not come within the ambit of expression 'manufacture' or 'production'. In the circumstances, this Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 80HH of the Income-tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

M/S. Gem Granites vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2004

9.Thus, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gem Granites (supra), on the scope of the expression 'manufacture', in the absence of any specific definition, we have no hesitation in giving common man's understanding as to the scope of the expression that the expression 'manufacture' would include every process, which would ultimately result in the production of new article having a different character in view.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 63 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 Next