Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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
  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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
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 law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

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 :

        2009 (4) TMI 968 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        CIT lacks power to withdraw claims under sections 80HH & 80-I in subsequent years; fresh consideration mandated. The court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) lacked the power to direct the withdrawal of claims under sections 80HH and 80-I in subsequent ...
                      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.

                          CIT lacks power to withdraw claims under sections 80HH & 80-I in subsequent years; fresh consideration mandated.

                          The court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) lacked the power to direct the withdrawal of claims under sections 80HH and 80-I in subsequent years as it would amount to reviewing the initial year's assessment. It emphasized that subsequent assessments must adhere to the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, even if it contradicts the initial year's decision. The court remitted the matters for fresh consideration regarding the eligibility of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in N.C. Budharaja, allowing the appeals without awarding costs.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Power of CIT to direct withdrawal of claims under ss. 80HH and 80-I in subsequent years.
                          2. Continuity of deductions under ss. 80HH and 80-I once granted in the initial year.
                          3. Eligibility of deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I for manufacturing intermediary products used in construction.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Power of CIT to Direct Withdrawal of Claims Under ss. 80HH and 80-I:
                          The Tribunal held that the CIT had no power to direct the withdrawal of claims under ss. 80HH and 80-I in the order passed under s. 263 of the Act, as it would amount to reviewing the order passed by the AO for the assessment year 1982-83, which had been barred by limitation. The Tribunal's position was based on the principle that once a decision is taken in the initial year, it cannot be revisited in subsequent years without disturbing the initial year's assessment.

                          2. Continuity of Deductions Under ss. 80HH and 80-I Once Granted in the Initial Year:
                          The Tribunal and the assessee argued that once the benefit of deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I is allowed in the first year, it should continue for the subsequent years until the expiry of the statutory stipulated period of benefits, namely, ten years. This argument was supported by the judgments in Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Paul Brothers. However, the Revenue contended that each assessment year is a separate unit, and subsequent assessments must adhere to the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, even if it means departing from the initial year's decision. The court agreed with the Revenue, noting that if the Supreme Court clarifies the law in a manner contrary to the initial year's basis, the assessing authority must follow the Supreme Court's interpretation in subsequent years.

                          3. Eligibility of Deduction Under ss. 80HH and 80-I for Manufacturing Intermediary Products Used in Construction:
                          The core issue was whether the activity of laying down the railway track amounts to manufacturing of goods/articles. The Revenue argued that such activity is construction, not manufacturing or production, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in N.C. Budharaja, which held that construction activities like dams, bridges, and roads do not constitute manufacturing or production of articles. The assessee countered that it was engaged in manufacturing numerous items used in the railway tracks, thus fulfilling the eligibility condition for deductions under ss. 80HH and 80-I. The court noted that the Tribunal had not examined this angle and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the end product (railway track) is the test, not the intermediary products.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court set aside the Tribunal's orders and remitted the matters for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to examine the eligibility of deductions under ss. 80HH and 80-I in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in N.C. Budharaja. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found