Ita/12/1994 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. Abhijit Iron Processors P. Ltd
High Court
20 Mar 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Ita/12/1994 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. Abhijit Iron Processors P. Ltd
Date of order
20 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Ita/12/1994 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. Abhijit Iron Processors P. Ltd, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 3.The question, whether the activity carried on by the assessee is a manufacturing activity is a question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NOS.1/94, 12/94 & 13/94
Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders ofdirections and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr.K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
DATED : 20TH MARCH, 2007.
P.C. :
1.All these applications were admitted on 17[th] April, 1998 on the following question of law.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was
justified in the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee necessary relief under section 80I of the Act subject to satisfaction of the other conditions for the Assessment Years 1988-89 to 1990-91 ?”
2
2.The common question raised in these applications is, whether the activity of cutting and breaking of the big boulders into small pieces by mechanical process amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal has relied upon its decision in the case of M/s.Bhilai Iron Foundary (P) Limited.
3.The question, whether the activity carried on by the assessee is a manufacturing activity is a question of law.
4.Accordingly, all these applications are allowed. The Tribunal is directed to forward the statement of case as expeditiously as possible.
5.Applications are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Judge
Judge.
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.