Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        <h1>Court rules activities on kendu leaves not 'processing' under Income-tax Act, tax collection at source applies</h1> <h3>North Koel Kendu Leaves And Mahulam Leaves Versus Union Of India And Others</h3> North Koel Kendu Leaves And Mahulam Leaves Versus Union Of India And Others - [1997] 228 ITR 630, 100 TAXMANN 172 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 206C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the activities performed by the petitioners on kendu leaves constitute 'processing' under the proviso to Section 206C(1).3. Validity of the Government of India's decision dated January 10, 1996, regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1) to kendu leaves traders.4. Entitlement of the petitioners to exemption certificates under Rule 37C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 206C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The petitioners, who are assessees under the Income-tax Act and traders in kendu leaves, challenged the applicability of Section 206C(1) of the Act. This section mandates the collection of tax at source at the rate of 15% on the sale price of any forest produce other than timber. The petitioners argued that their case falls under the proviso to Section 206C(1), which exempts tax collection if the goods are used for manufacturing, processing, or producing articles or things and not for trading purposes.2. Whether the activities performed by the petitioners on kendu leaves constitute 'processing' under the proviso to Section 206C(1):The core issue was whether the petitioners' activities-drying, sprinkling water, sorting, and bundling kendu leaves-constitute 'processing.' The petitioners contended that these activities converted kendu leaves into bidi leaves, a marketable commodity. The court referred to the definition of 'processing' as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Chowgule and Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India, which stated that processing involves subjecting a commodity to a process or treatment that results in a change. However, the court found that the petitioners' activities did not result in a change that brought a different substance into existence from what it was at the commencement of the process. The activities were deemed to only preserve the kendu leaves in a saleable and marketable condition.3. Validity of the Government of India's decision dated January 10, 1996, regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1) to kendu leaves traders:The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, issued a decision on January 10, 1996, stating that the operations carried out by kendu leaves traders do not change the nature and character of the leaves and are performed only to maintain the leaves in a saleable and marketable condition. The court upheld this decision, agreeing that the petitioners' activities did not amount to processing and thus, the provisions of Section 206C(1) were applicable.4. Entitlement of the petitioners to exemption certificates under Rule 37C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:The petitioners sought exemption certificates under Rule 37C, which provides for exemption if the goods are used for manufacturing, processing, or producing articles or things. Given the court's finding that the petitioners' activities did not constitute processing, the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption certificates. The court concluded that the goods were used for trading purposes and not for processing, thus the proviso to Section 206C was not applicable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ applications, holding that the activities performed by the petitioners did not constitute 'processing' under the proviso to Section 206C(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the tax collection at source was applicable, and the petitioners were not entitled to exemption certificates under Rule 37C. The Government of India's decision dated January 10, 1996, was upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found