The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Hindustan Pencil Ltd
High Court
21 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Hindustan Pencil Ltd
Date of order
21 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Hindustan Pencil Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE -21ST FEBRUARY,2011 .The question raised in these appeals is whether producing sharpner, scale, eraser and cutter amounts to manufacture .
Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONI.T.X.A.NO. 2338/2009WITH
I.T.X.A.NO. 2339/2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax 2AppellantVs.Hindustan Pencil Ltd.
Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the AppellantMr.Dastur ,Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.P.J.Pardiwala,Sr.Counsel and Mr.A.K.Jasani for the respondent.
P.C.
CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE -21ST FEBRUARY,2011
.The question raised in these appeals is whether producing sharpner, scale, eraser and cutter amounts to manufacture . The Tribunal after recording detail reasons has arrived at a finding of fact that the items produced by the respondent are manufactured items and therefore entitled to deduction under section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act , 1961. In the affidavit filed by the assessee it is stated that the products in question are excisable products and the assessee has obtained necessary registration certificate from the Central Excise Authority. Thus the fact that the products in question are manufactured goods under the Central Excise Law cannot be disputed. In the
absence of any contrary meaning to the word ‘manufacture’ under the Income Tax Act, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be faulted.
In this view of the matter we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal .
The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,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.