Commissioner of Income-tax Bangalore-III, Bangalore / Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore v. Saint Gobain Crystal and Detectors (I) Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0902-14]

Citation 2020-LL-0902-14
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax Bangalore-III, Bangalore / Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore
Respondent Name Saint Gobain Crystal and Detectors (I) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/09/2020
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • manufacturing activity
Bot Summary: Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2013 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities while the assessee is only polishing the crystals and 3 thereafter assembling the glass and crystals. The process undertaken by the assessee would not bring anything new into existence. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union India Vs. Delhi Cloth General Merchants Co. Ltd. reported in 1963 AIR SC 791 has differentiated processing from manufacturing 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed in ITA No.351/2009 c/w ITA No.352/2009. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4 In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.81 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-III, BANGALORE. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTAL AND DETECTORS (I) LTD., SY. NO.171/2, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HOODI RAJAPALYA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560048. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANKUR PAI, FOR SRI. K.R. VASUDEVAA, ADV.,) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14-09-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO: 2 I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER OF ITAT, BANGALORE PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012 DATED 14-09-2012 AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DATED 04-11- 2011 IN APPEAL NO.157/C-12(3)/CIT(A)-III/BNG/2010-11. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel for assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2013 on following substantial question of law: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities while assessee is only polishing crystals and 3 thereafter assembling glass and crystals. process undertaken by assessee would not bring anything new into existence. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Union India Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Merchants Co. Ltd. reported in 1963 AIR SC 791 has differentiated processing from manufacturing? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial question of law has been answered by Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed in ITA No.351/2009 c/w ITA No.352/2009. 4. In view of aforesaid submissions and for reasons assigned in aforesaid judgment, substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. 4 In result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax Bangalore-III, Bangalore / Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore v. Saint Gobain Crystal and Detectors (I) Ltd
Report Error