|
II. Useful Case laws:
1. Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1463/Kol/2007, Date of pronouncement: 20/07/2012, ITAT- Kolkata
Issue:
“Whether the business of blending & processing of tea and export thereof, can be said to be
“Manufacturer/Producer” of the tea for the purpose of Section 10A/10B of the I.T. Act, 1961?
Held:
The definition of ‘manufacture’ under the SEZ Act, Exim Policy, Food Adulteration Rules and Tea (Marketing) Control Order is much wider than what is the meaning of the term ‘manufacture’ under the common parlance, and it includes processing, blending, packaging etc. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries (supra) and Tata Tea Limited (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. Similarly, in our view, the industrial units engaged in the very same activity i.e. blending, packing and export of tea in the free trade zone shall also be entitled to enjoy tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act.
(Please click here judgment)
2. M/s Apollo Hospital Enterprises Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1506/Mds/2010, Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2012, ITAT- Chennai
Notification issued u/s. 90A(3) cannot interpret terms used in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
When a notification is issued exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 90A of the Act, it can have effect only on those types of agreement mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. If such a notification goes beyond that mandate, it will have to be ignored to the extent it goes overboard. Even if the term “may be taxed” has been given a meaning by the Government through a Notification No. 90A(3) of the Act, so as to extend such meaning to terms used in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it will have to be ignored.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now