Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 612 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999

Assistant Cit vs Gallium Equipment (P) Ltd. on 23 April, 2001

In that case the income of the assessed will be enhanced by Rs. 6.56 lakhs and in that case, deduction under section 80-I will be much more against the deduction claimed on the interest earned at Rs. 2,46,045. In fact this is a case of netting of the two interests which was for the purpose of business only. The interest payment was for the purpose of business as the borrowed funds were used only for business purpose. There is no dispute in this regard, and the interest income earned on FDRs was for business purposes because the FDRs were obtained for the purpose of security as required by the bank. Therefore, these FDRs were obtained for smooth running of the business. Therefore, this income is also from business activity of the industrial undertaking of the assessed. This is not a case where only interest income was earned and no payment was made on account of interest, here both interests were involved, as payments were there and receipts were there. Therefore, this is a case of netting of two interests, which the assessed has rightly netted and net amount was shown in its profit & loss account.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Metal Link, Daman vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2009

"In view of these facts and the recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods-237 ITR 579, the income from sale of import license will treated as income from other sources and the same will be excluded while working the profits and eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. As such DEPB amounting to Rs.1,10,556/- (Rs.4,29,441/-) received by the assessee during the year under consideration shown as income from other sources, is excluded while working out the profits and eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Thus, by claiming deduction under section 80IA on the DEPB income from the purpose of computation of total income, the as has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, from which penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act is initiated on this point."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surya International, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 18 January, 2007

In CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC), the 15 IT A No . 15 3 3/ A hd / 20 0 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the nexus theory and declined to treat such interest earned as business income. An assessee who is engaged in the business of exports and invests the surplus funds in fixed deposits will not be able to treat the interest earned thereon as business income since it does not bear any direct nexus with the export business of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitsu Ind. Ltd,, Vapi vs Assessee on 11 June, 2004

It could not be proved by him that the facts of case are identical to that of the case of the appellant and therefore, appellant can not derive support from the decision in the case of United Phosphorus Ltd. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Sterling Foods (supra), I have given a finding in the case of Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd. for the Asstt. Year 2000-01 vide appellate order 24-2-2004, that export benefit receivable is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Since, the facts are exactly similar, therefore, relying on the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the deduction u/s 80IB will not be available to the export benefit receivable as it was not derived from the industrial undertaking of the appellant."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cc 8, Mumbai on 27 October, 2017

In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pandian Chemicals (supra) and Sterling Foods Ltd (supra) and distinguished them and held that the language used in section 80-lB is different from the language in section 80- HH/80-I. The expression used in section 80-lB i.e. profit derived from business of the industrial undertaking is much wider than the expression used in section 80-HH/80-I i.e. 'profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. We also found that the profit earned out of squaring off future contracts is profit earned on account of hedging transaction. Thus there is a direct nexus between the activity of Jammu unit and the profit earned in the hedging contracts. The hedging Mentha Oil stemmed from the activity of Jammu unit of manufacturing Menthol Products.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals (P) Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 30 November, 2004

In CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the nexus theory and declined to treat such interest earned as business income. An assessee who is engaged in the business of exports and invests the surplus funds in fixed deposits will not be able to treat the interest earned thereon as business income since it does not bear any direct nexus with the export business of 18 ITA No.389/Ahd/2005 the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheena Industries, New Delhi vs Assessee on 8 February, 2012

4. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80lB at Rs.2,57,06,739/- on business profit of Rs. 10,28,26,956/- which included export incentives at Rs. 9,19,51,993/- i.e. duty drawback at Rs. 9,04,69,146/- and DEPB at Rs. 14,82,847/-. While framing assessment u/s 143(3) the deduction claimed u/s 801B was denied in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods Ltd. reported at 237, ITR 579. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee thereby allowing the deduction u/s 80lB on the amount of duty drawback. On further appeal by the department, the Hon'ble ITAT decided this issue in favour of the department. Therefore, the concomitant total income of Rs. 2,63,44,800/- on granting appeal effect to the orders of the Tribunal, is assumed to have attained finality and is taken as the base for the instant assessment u/s 153A."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sutlej Motors Ltd. on 2 March, 2007

Further, we have noted two judgments of jurisdictional High Court discussed in the succeeding paragraphs where the Hon'ble High Court by relying on the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Sterling Foods (supra) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has held that income, by way of duty drawback and from purchase and sale of goods manufactured by other concerns, was not a profit derived from an industrial undertaking and hence, not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA. The judgments of Supreme Court and of jurisdictional High Court are binding and, therefore, cannot be ignored for the sake of consistency.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mentha Allied Products (P) Ltd. on 3 August, 2005

13. Similar provisions are there in Section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The aforesaid provisions of the duty drawback appears to be under the export promotion policy of the Government of India provided as incentive to encourage export. These incentives may be attributed to the profits and gains but cannot be treated, as a profit derived from the industrial undertaking as interpreted by the Apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sterling Foods (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next