Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax v. M/S Raj Laxmi Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd
High Court
03 Jan 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax v. M/S Raj Laxmi Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
03 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax v. M/S Raj Laxmi Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Decision: That being the situation, we do not admit the appeal and the same is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALIncome Tax Appeal No. 68 of 2010
Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax.
….…… Appellant
Versus
M/s Raj Laxmi Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd.
………. Respondent
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Standing Counsel (Income Tax) for the appellant.
Date of Judgment: 03.01.2011
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL)
The question of law raised here is now covered by a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Udaipur vs. M/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P.) Ltd., reported in 2010 (320), ITR – 79.
2. In the instant case, the dispute is whether cutting of marble blocks by sawing into slabs and tiles and polishing amounts to “manufacture or production of article or thing”. The same was also the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the same amounts to manufacture or production.
3. That being the situation, we do not admit the appeal and the same is disposed of. It is recorded that we have not issued notice to the respondent.
Amit
(V.K. Bist, J.)
03.01.2011
(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
03.01.2011
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.