Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Nishan Exports,, Jetpur vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 30 November, 2018

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Cauvery Enterprises on 5 August, 2021

11.The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Nishanth Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Mattancherry reported in (2018) 401 ITR 401 (Kerala). The said decision also would not help the case of the Revenue, because, whether garbling to make pepper edible would amount to giving rise to a different commodity distinct from the raw pepper purchased, was the issue therein. Admittedly, in the said case, the pepper both in raw form or in edible form, continued to remain as pepper.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Jannani Holdings on 4 August, 2021

11.The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Nishanth Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Mattancherry reported in (2018) 401 ITR 401 (Kerala). The said decision also would not help the case of the Revenue, because, whether garbling to make pepper edible would amount to giving rise to a different commodity distinct from the raw pepper purchased, was the issue therein. Admittedly, in the said case, the pepper both in raw form or in edible form, continued to remain as pepper.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd on 19 August, 2021

11.The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Nishanth Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Mattancherry reported in (2018) 401 ITR 401 Page 9/14 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.726 of 2016 (Kerala). The said decision also would not help the case of the Revenue, because, whether garbling to make pepper edible would amount to giving rise to a different commodity distinct from the raw pepper purchased, was the issue therein. Admittedly, in the said case, the pepper both in raw form or in edible form, continued to remain as pepper.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Neel Kanth Gum & Chemicals, Jaipur vs Acit, Jhunjhunu on 1 October, 2019

It is given under Duty Exemption Remission Scheme. Essentially, it is an export incentive. No doubt, the object behind DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product. This neutralization is provided for by credit to customs duty against export product. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of Sections 80I/80IA/80IB of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nissan Exports Vs. CIT (supra), the deduction as claimed falls U/s 80HHC of the Act and also in the case of Global Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) pertains to claim of deduction U/s 80HHC of the Act, therefore, this would have application on the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1