In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -24 Mumbai v. Jagdish S. Chitre, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. :- 1.Whether production of electrical meter testing equipments by assembling various parts in the industrial unit set up by the assessee at Silvasa constitutes manufacturing activity for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appe...
Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 6056 of 2010.
The Commissioner of Income-tax -24 Mumbai
... Appellant.
Versus
Jagdish S. Chitre
... Respondent.
Ms Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 17[th] November,2011.
P.C. :-
1.Whether production of electrical meter testing equipments by assembling various parts in the industrial unit set up by the assessee at Silvasa constitutes manufacturing activity for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.In the Assessment Year for AY-2001-2002 the Assessing Officer had disallowed claim of the Assessee under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the production of goods by assembling various inputs did not constitute manufacture.
Ladda
3.The ITAT has recorded a finding of fact that the goods produced by the Assessee by assembling constitute commercially distinct items which are totally different from the raw materials used in the production of the articles. In view of the specific finding recorded by the ITAT that the assessee produced commercially distinct articles which are different from the raw materials used, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing activity and hence eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
(A.R.Joshi,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.