Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.57 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. on 8 February, 1996
Respectfully
following the said decision of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of
Kichha Sugar Company (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the ld.
CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of belated
8 ITA 5220/M/06 & 4976/M/06
payment of employees' contribution to the provident fund and allow ground
No. 4 of Revenue's appeal.
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Topman Exports vs Commr Of Income Tax,Mumbai on 8 February, 2012
6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the
relevant material available on record. As regards the issue involved in ground
No. 1(a) of the assessee's appeal, it is observed that as per the 5th proviso to
section 80HHC(3) of the Act, in case the computation under Clause (a) or (b)
or (c) of sub section 3 of section 80HHC of the Act is a loss, such loss is to be
set off against the amount which bears to 90% of any sum referred to in
clause (iiia) or clause (3) or clause (iiic) of section 28 of the Act as the case
may be. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman
Exports vs. CIT, 342 ITR 249 (SC), the face value of DEPB falls u/s 28(iiib)
while the duty drawback falls u/s 28(iiic) of the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., ... on 8 August, 2000
In the case of CIT vs. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (2000)
245 ITR 769 cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it was held by the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court the turnover should be restricted to the such
receipts which have element of profit in it and anything charged by the
assessee by way of excise duty and sales tax cannot be taken into account as
they do not have any element of profit.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Crown Computerised Embroideries P. ... on 9 January, 2007
Even otherwise, the excise duty
refund is liable to be netted against excise duty paid and once such netting is
allowed, the excise duty cannot be part of any direct cost as per the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crown
Computerised reported in (2007) 289 ITR 151 (Del). This issue thus is
squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judicial pronouncements
discussed above and even the ld. D.R. at the time of hearing before us has
accepted this position. Respectfully following the said judicial
pronouncements, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) directing
the A.O. to reduce the central excise duty refund from the cost of goods for
the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act and dismiss
ground No. 1 of Revenue's appeal.
1