Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T New Delhi vs Orient Craft Ltd. on 20 January, 2014
The Court observed that the decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers
P. Ltd. (supra) "contrary to what the Revenue would have us believe,
does not give a carte blanche to the Assessing Officer to disturb the
finality of the intimation under Section 143(1) at his whims and
caprice; he must have reason to believe within the meaning of the
Section." The Court in Orient Craft Ltd. recorded that the decision in
Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. underscored that the intimation
under Section 143(1) of the Act could be disturbed by initiating
reassessment proceedings only:
Section 80I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999
Further reliance is placed on the ratio of decision of the apex
court in the case of M/s. Pandian Chemicals ltd vs. CIT
262 ITR 278 (SC) and CIT vs. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579
(SC). In both the decisions, the apex court have held that the
deduction inter-alia under section 80I is available only in
respect of such profits and gains which have a direct and
proximate nexus with the activity of manufacture or
production. Any other profit or gain which is not 'derived
from' an industrial undertaking though 'attributable to' the
business of the industrial undertaking would not be
entitled to deduction. The profit and gain must accrue in
the course of or arise from the manufacture or production of
the industrial undertaking. There must be for the application of
the words "Derived from" a direc t nexus between the
profits and the industrial undertaking, a view taken by
the apex court in the case of Sterling Foods. In the said
decision the court have further observed that to claim the
benefit the assessee has to establish that the profits and
gains were derived from industrial undertaking and it was
just not sufficient that commercial connection between the
two was established. The industrial undertaking has to be
the source of profits. The business of the industrial
undertaking has directly to yield the profits. The industrial
undertaking should be the direct source of that profit and
not a means to earn the profit.
Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 April, 1978
The ratio of decision of the Apex
Court in the case of M/s. Cambay Electrical Supply
Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT Gujarat-II [ 113 ITR
84] is also very much relevant here wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the meaning of
the word 'derived from" and "attributable to". The question
in this case was whether balancing charge u/s. 41(2) was a
20 M/s. Lupin Limited
ITA No. 825/Mum/2012
profit attributable to the business of the assessee. The
assessee had sold machinery and buildings and had
earned a profit there upon. While deciding this case the
Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:-