Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Computer Graphics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Computer Graphics Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Disposition Appeal dismissed against the assessee Court Chennai Decided Aug 06, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/831502

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
T.C. Appeal Nos. 1160 to 1162 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Subject
Direct Taxation
Disposition
Appeal dismissed against the assessee

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed against the assessee
Acts & sections
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80IB

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Computer Graphics Ltd.

Advocate C.V. Rajan, Adv.

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Legal References

Acts
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80IB
Reported In
[2009]308ITR96(Mad)

Excerpt

- .....assessee against the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras 'a' bench, dated april 30, 2008, passed in ita nos. 288/mds of 2006, 1052/mds of 2007 and 2314/mds of 2006 by formulating the following common question of law:whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under section 80-ib of the income-tax act, 1961, on the ground that conversion of jumbo rolls into salable packets/rolls of standard size was not manufacture or production of article or thing ?2. the relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. the facts, as culled out from the statement of facts, are as follows:3. the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. it is engaged in the business of conversion of jumbo rolls of konica colour paper, konika graphic art film and medical x-ray films into commercially saleable packets/rolls of standard size. along with the returns of income filed by the appellant before the assessing officer in the relevant assessment years, the elaborate activity of conversion of jumbo rolls into salable packets, rolls of standard sizes was narrated in the note to drive home the point that such conversion involved manufacture or production of articles or things. the assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction on the ground that there was no manufacture of article or thing and relied upon the decision of the supreme court in the case of cit v. relish foods : [1999]237itr59(sc) . the assessee filed further appeals in respect of the relevant assessment years to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), who confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal. aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeals to the income-tax appellate tribunal, which by reason of the impugned common order, nonsuited the appellant for the relief claimed.4. the very same issue involved in these appeals.....

Full Judgment

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

1. These are the appeals at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated April 30, 2008, passed in ITA Nos. 288/Mds of 2006, 1052/Mds of 2007 and 2314/Mds of 2006 by formulating the following common question of law:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that conversion of jumbo rolls into salable packets/rolls of standard size was not manufacture or production of article or thing ?

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The facts, as culled out from the statement of facts, are as follows:

3. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of conversion of jumbo rolls of Konica colour paper, Konika graphic art film and medical X-ray films into commercially saleable packets/rolls of standard size. Along with the returns of income filed by the appellant before the Assessing Officer in the relevant assessment years, the elaborate activity of conversion of jumbo rolls into salable packets, rolls of standard sizes was narrated in the note to drive home the point that such conversion involved manufacture or production of articles or things. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction on the ground that there was no manufacture of article or thing and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Relish Foods : [1999]237ITR59(SC) . The assessee filed further appeals in respect of the relevant assessment years to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which by reason of the impugned common order, nonsuited the appellant for the relief claimed.

4. The very same issue involved in these appeals has been considered by this Court in the assessee's own case reported in CIT v. Computer Graphics Ltd. : [2006]285ITR84(Mad) , wherein this Court has held that the activity of converting jumbo rolls into marketable small sizes cannot be regarded as a manufacturing activity and as such he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80I-B.

5. As there is no merit in these appeals and the abovesaid question of law has already been answered against the assessee in the above case and also India Cine Agencies v. CIT : [2003]261ITR491(Mad) , these appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2008 are also dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial