Magic Landcon Llp, New Delhi vs Pr. Cit-11, New Delhi on 26 February, 2020
and CIT vs., Metro
and Metro [2018] 404 ITR 304 (All.).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)Asstt. Cit, Circle, Panipat vs Liberty India on 28 June, 2005
3. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80-IB in respect of duty drawback amounting to Rs. 1,74,316 by holding that the duty drawback received by the assessee was inextricably linked with the production cost of the goods manufactured by the assessee and so the duty drawback amounting to Rs. 1,74,316 was a trading receipt of the industrial undertaking having direct nexus with the activity of such industrial undertaking and, therefore, it forms part of the income derived from such industrial undertaking. The CIT(Appeals) coming to the above conclusion has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Metro Tyres Ltd. (2001) 79 ITD 557 wherein the Tribunal held as under:
Ajit Gupta vs Income Tax Officer on 25 January, 2007
14. Now, with respect to the exclusion of incomes of duty drawback and samples for computing deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, the AO had considered such amounts as part of eligible profits- for the purposes of computing deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. On the issue of duty drawback, the judgments of Gujarat High Court in the case of India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and of the Tribunal in the case of Metro Tyres Ltd. (supra) and A.P. Industrial Components Ltd. (supra) support the stand of the AO. Similarly, Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Investwel Publishers (P) Ltd. (supra) support the case of the assessee and the conclusion drawn by the AO. In contrast the CIT and the learned Departmental Representative interpreted "derived from" to infer that such incomes are not includible for the purposes of Section 80-IB of the Act and reliance was placed in the case of Sterling Foods (supra). Again on this aspect, it is evident that it is a matter of interpretive exercise and two possible interpretations are feasible. Therefore, without adjudicating as to which is a correct interpretation, it is clear that Section 263 is unwarranted in such situation. Therefore, on this aspect also, the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 is unjustified.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 17 February, 2006
In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Metro Tyres Ltd. [2001] 79 ITD 557 and also the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. N.S.C. Shoes and also CIT v. Jameel Leathers & Uppers . The Id. Special Counsel submitted that the impugned incomes may constitute business income, being from an activity which is incidental to business but cannot be said to have been derived from industrial undertaking, which was a condition precedent for allowability of relief under Section 80-I of the Act.
1