Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Lottery Ticket Printing Business Recognized as Industrial Undertaking, Securing Tax Deductions Under Section 80-I</h1> HC ruled that a lottery ticket printing business qualifies as an industrial undertaking for tax deduction under section 80-I of Income-tax Act. The court ... Deduction u/s 80-I - Printing Lottery Tickets Business - whether the assessee, engaged in the business of printing of lottery tickets, can be said to be an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things and, therefore, entitled to deduction under section 80-I - HELD THAT:- When there is no change in the business of the assessee, relief under section 80-I of the Act can be denied to them in respect of some of the assessment years when similar relief is granted for previous and subsequent years. Having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of section 80-I of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now turn around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present AYs - without going into the merits of the issue raised, we decline to entertain the appeals on this short ground. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Court was whether the assessee, engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets, qualifies as an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things, thereby entitling it to claim deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The appeals arose from the Revenue's challenge to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's (Tribunal) orders granting such deduction for certain assessment years. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Revenue could be permitted to adopt a different stance in subsequent assessment years after having accepted the assessee's entitlement to deduction under section 80-I in earlier and later years, despite the general principle that each assessment year is independent.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-I of the Act for Printing Lottery Tickets BusinessRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act grants deduction to industrial undertakings engaged in manufacture or production of articles or things. The critical question was whether the printing of lottery tickets constitutes manufacture or production within the meaning of this provision.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that neither the assessment orders nor the Tribunal's orders contained any detailed discussion on this issue. The Assessing Officers rejected the claim merely by referring to earlier disallowances, while the Tribunal upheld the deduction relying on its earlier rulings, particularly for the assessment year 1992-93. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether printing lottery tickets amounts to manufacture but focused on the consistency of the Revenue's approach across assessment years.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal had, in the assessment year 1992-93, ruled in favour of the assessee's entitlement to deduction under section 80-I. This order was not challenged by the Revenue. For subsequent years (1995-96 and 1997-98), the Revenue also did not challenge the Tribunal's orders granting the deduction. The Assessing Officers in the present appeals disallowed the deduction only on the ground that it was disallowed in earlier years, without any fresh material or change in the nature of the business.Application of Law to Facts: The Court acknowledged the general principle that each assessment year is independent and that res judicata or estoppel by record does not strictly apply to income tax proceedings. However, it emphasized the importance of consistency and finality in litigation, including fiscal matters. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, which held that where a fundamental aspect remains unchanged and parties have acquiesced to a particular position by not challenging earlier orders, it is inappropriate to reopen the issue in subsequent years.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that since the issue was legal in nature and the principle of res judicata does not apply, the appeals should be entertained. The assessee contended that the Revenue had accepted the deduction for multiple years without challenge, and no change in business activity justified a different stance. The Court found the assessee's argument persuasive, emphasizing judicial economy and finality.Conclusions: The Court held that the Revenue could not be permitted to take a contrary position in the present assessment years after having accepted the deduction in earlier and later years without any change in facts or business nature. The appeals were dismissed without examining the substantive merits of whether printing lottery tickets is manufacturing under section 80-I.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'For the sake of consistency and for the purpose of finality in all litigations, including litigation arising out of fiscal statutes, earlier decisions on the same question should not be reopened unless some fresh facts are found in the subsequent year.''Where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and the parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.''Having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of section 80-I of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now turn around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.''The apex court has also deprecated the practice of the Department in accepting the correctness of a judgment on a particular issue in one case and challenging its correctness in another case.'The Court established the principle that while each assessment year is independent, repeated acceptance of a legal position by the Revenue in multiple years without challenge and without any change in facts or business nature creates a binding effect for the purposes of consistency and finality. The Revenue's attempt to adopt a contrary stand in certain years was rejected on this ground alone.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found