12. With this background in view it would be necessary to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT .
Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi-
Trib.) for the proposition that company with very high turnover should not be
considered as a comparable. He further submitted that a giant company in terms of
risk profile, nature of services, number of employees, ownership of branded products
Page 104 of 112
ITA No.-654/Del/2015.
14. When this judgment was pronounced, the learned standing counsel applied orally for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court stating that there is some difficulty in the application of the particular decision of the Supreme Court to the relevant facts of this case and also brought to our notice the grant of leave by the Gujarat High Court in the case referred to above.
When this judgment was pronounced, the learned standing counsel applied orally for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court stating that there is some difficulty in the application of the particular decision of the Supreme Court to the relevant facts of this case and also brought to our notice the grant of leave by the Gujarat High Court in the case referred to above.
9. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT , we answer question No. 3 in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
4. आमकय आमक्त / CIT
P a g e |4
M.A.403/Mum/2018 A.Y.2010-11
(Arising out of ITA No.3563/Mum/2015)
Swiwar Offshore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Addl. DIT (IT), Range-2
" It is important in this connection to remember that the Legislature has used the expression 'profits and gains' and not the total income of the priority industry or 'gross total income' of the priority industry advisedly. It is in this background that the Supreme Court's later decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243, understood the meaning of this expression. We have now the declared pronouncement of the Supreme Court at p. 260 of the said report that whenever the sections in that Chapter, namely, Chap. VI-A, used the expression 'where the gross total income of an assessee......includes any
income.........', these sections meant that the deduction admissible was in
respect of the whole of the income received by the assessee and not in respect of the income computed after making the deductions provided under the Act. That is how the Legislature also in enacting the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, understood the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court. That is how they have tried to alter the law by the provisions of Sections 80AA and 80AB by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, as we have set out hereinbefore. Therefore, in our opinion, on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.)