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

        High Court rules in favor of appellant in tax appeal, emphasizing consistent application of legal provisions

        Simple Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

        Simple Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur - TMI Issues involved:
        - Interpretation of Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
        - Claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB for multiple assessment years
        - Manufacturing activities vs. trading activities for claiming deductions
        - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in granting or denying deductions
        - Application of legal precedents in determining eligibility for deductions

        Analysis:

        Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
        The case involved a challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the deduction under Sections 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years. The central question was whether the appellant was entitled to deductions for 10 consecutive assessment years as provided in Section 80IB(3). The Tribunal had disallowed the deductions on the grounds that the appellant did not carry out manufacturing activities but only engaged in trading in milk.

        Issue 2: Claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB for multiple assessment years
        The appellant had claimed deductions under Section 80IA/80IB for several assessment years, starting from 1996-1997. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deductions for subsequent years, stating that the appellant did not engage in manufacturing activities but only traded in milk. The appellant argued that once a deduction is granted in the initial assessment year, it should continue for 10 consecutive years unless withdrawn.

        Issue 3: Manufacturing activities vs. trading activities for claiming deductions
        The dispute revolved around whether the appellant's activities qualified as manufacturing or production under Section 80IB(3)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer contended that the appellant only engaged in trading, while the appellant asserted that their production of different varieties of branded milk constituted manufacturing or production under the Act.

        Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in granting or denying deductions
        The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to deny the benefit of deductions under Section 80IA/80IB for subsequent assessment years if the deductions were not withdrawn in the initial year when granted. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their claim that once a deduction is allowed in the initial assessment year, it should continue for the specified period unless withdrawn.

        Issue 5: Application of legal precedents in determining eligibility for deductions
        The appellant cited previous court decisions, such as CIT Vs. Paul Brothers and CIT vs Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd., to support their argument that the deductions should not be denied for subsequent years if granted in the initial year. The court analyzed these precedents and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the deductions for the consecutive assessment years unless withdrawn in the initial year.

        In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistent application of legal provisions and precedents in determining the eligibility for deductions under the Income Tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found