In Tax v. M/.S Kehmi Filaments Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: In the present appeal the following substantial question of law has been raised. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the activities of texturising and twisting the yarn is a process of manufacturing of articles or things with...
Decision: The income tax appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2002
The Commissioner of Income
Tax ..Appellant
Vs.
M/.s Kehmi Filaments Ltd. ..Respondents
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.S.S.Shetty for respondents.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. In
the present appeal the following substantial question of
law has been raised.
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in
holding that the activities of texturising and
twisting the yarn is a process of manufacturing of
articles or things within the meaning of section
80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
2. Both the learned Counsel state that the very same
question was considered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal
No.1393 of 2000 decided by the Division Bench on 27th
February, 2008 in the matter of the Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay Vs. M/s Emptee Poly-Yarn
Pvt.Ltd. wherein this Court has clearly answered the said
question in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue. Accordingly, in the present appeal also the
question of law has been answered in favour of the
assessee and against the revenue for the same reasons.
The income tax appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (DR.S.RADHAAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (DR.S.RADHAAKRISHNAN 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.