Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 326 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ipca Laboratory Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 March, 2004

B. Sorabji vs Income Tax Officer on 23 June, 2005

9. As per the Revenue, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA (supra) fully supported their stand and the assessee was not entitled to any relief where there was no profit from export and there is no question of considering the claim of deduction with reference to incentive receipts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Ix, ... vs M/S Arya Exports & Industries on 18 August, 2017

24. The decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (supra) did not consider the situation of a supporting manufacturer claiming deduction in terms of Section 80 HHC (1A) of the ITA 206/2005 Page 13 of 19 Act. Since, in the facts of that case the Assessee was the exporter itself and not a supporting manufacturer, the Court was not concerned with the interpretation of Section 80 HHC (1A) and the corresponding provisions, i.e., sub-sections (2A), (3A).
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.R. Prabhakar on 18 May, 2004

In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court while disapproving the observations made by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 429, has specifically affirmed the decision reported in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (No. 1) [2001] 251 ITR 401 (Bom). In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 80HHC(3) has categorically observed that the expression "profit" in 80HHC(3) will mean profits after taking into account the losses, if any. It was further observed (page 531) "More importantly, in our view, the term 'profit' in Section 80HHC both in Sub-section (1) and in Sub-section (3) means a positive profit worked out after taking into consideration the losses, if any. Thus the word "profit" has the same meaning in Section 80HHC(1) and (3)". It is of course true that the Supreme Court was considering a case where Sub-section (3) had been amended with effect from April 1, 1992. However, the observation of the Supreme Court that the word "profits" has the same meaning in Section 80HHC(1) and (3) is very significant, which means that such profit must be taken to be "positive profit" and not "loss".
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - P K Misra - Full Document

Mange Ram Mittal vs Asstt. Cit on 18 August, 2006

It, therefore, follows that as long as there is an evidence to the undisclosed income of the assessee, that would be sufficient to clothe the assessing officer with the powers to add to such evidence any further material or information that may be pertinent or necessary to reach a logical conclusion but there has to be a certain and specific nexus between the evidence found as a result of search and undisclosed income proposed to be assessed in the block assessment under Section 158BC. At the same time it is not correct position in law to hold that conclusive evidence of undisclosed income should be found during the course of search action itself and nothing further can be added or supplemented by way of subsequent enquiry. This aspect has been dealt within the order of the Third Member in the case of Napar Drugs (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2006) 98 ITD 285 (Delhi) in the following words:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 105 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Champdany Industries Ltd. on 28 January, 2005

Before concluding, we may mention that in the case of the same assessee in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 in Income-tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 (IPCA Laboratories Ltd v. Dy. CIT (No. 1) (2001) 251 ITR 401), this court has come to the conclusion that in calculating the profits under section 80HHC(3)(c), the assessee was not entitled to ignore the losses in respect of the export of trading goods and that if the net result of the computation under the section is a loss, then the assessee is not entitled to claim the relief under section 80HHC(1). For the aforestated reasons, the following order is passed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B. Sorabji vs Ito, Ward 20(1)(2) on 23 June, 2005

9. As per the revenue, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA (supra) fully supported their stand and the assessee was not entitled to any relief where there was no profit from export and there is no question of considering the claim of deduction with reference to incentive receipts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 39 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rohan Dyes And Intermediates Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 August, 2004

Then follow (i) and (ii). Between (i) and (ii) the word 'and' appears. A plain reading of Sub-section (3)(c) shows that 'profits from such exports' has to be profits of exports of self manufactured goods plus profits of exports of trading goods. The profit is to be calculated in the manner laid down in Sub-sections (3)(c)(i) and (ii). The opening words 'profit derived from such exports' together with the word 'and' clearly indicate that the profits have to be calculated by counting both the exports. It is clear from a reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC(3) that a deduction can be permitted only if there is a positive profit in the exports of both self manufactured goods as well as trading goods. If there is a loss in either of the two then that loss has to be taken into account for the purposes of computing profits."
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Madhav Marbles & Granitesltd vs A.C.I.T.Circle-2 Udaipur on 29 January, 2013

1. Whether the learned Tribunal was in error in following the judgment in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR-521 (SC) as the basic facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case there was one Unit only, and the question was of adjustment of loss in export towards the profit of trading in manufacturing of the same Unit, and in the present case the two units being the Unit no.1 and 3 have nothing to do with each other except they are owned by one Company?
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - V Kothari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next