M/S.aska Sales Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors
High Court
29 Nov 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.aska Sales Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors
Date of order
29 Nov 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.aska Sales Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Issue: The question,therefore, is whether the assessee, in cuttingand polishing diamonds manufactures orproduces any article or thing.The Tribunal took the view that it did becausein "common parlance and commercial sense rawdiamonds are not the same thing as polishedand cut diamonds.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2003
M/s.Aska Sales Pvt. Ltd.vs.1. Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Mumbai & ors.
Appellants
Respondents
Mr.M.C.Shah i/b. Mr.Ajay Rao for the appellants.
P.C.
CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 29th November 2004
Heard Mr.M.C.Shah, the learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Gem India Manufacturing Co., 249 ITR 307
observed thus:
"Section 80-I gives a deduction in respect ofprofits and gains from industrial undertakingswhich, among other conditions, manufacture orproduce any article or thing. The question,therefore, is whether the assessee, in cuttingand polishing diamonds manufactures orproduces any article or thing.The Tribunal took the view that it did becausein "common parlance and commercial sense rawdiamonds are not the same thing as polishedand cut diamonds. The two are differententities in the commercial world. Though thechemical composition remains the same thephysical characteristics of shape and class,etc., are substantially different". It wouldappear that no material had been placed on the
allowed because kerfing activity is not manufacturing
activity.
4. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order of
the Tribunal.
5. No substantial question of law arises.
6. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M.LODHA,J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
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.