Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
M/S Calico Trends, Kanpur vs Assessee cites

M/S. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd., ... vs Acit, Circle, Bhilwara on 8 August, 2023

(c) Shree Bharakha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT [2002] 83 ITD 714 (Jd) [8] Hence, the ratio laid down in Para 17 & 18 cannot be overlooked. It is also worth mentioning that if as per judgment of Hon'ble apex court, an issue is decided against the assessee on several aspects, then to take a different view, it is necessary to come out on all the aspects and even if on one or more aspects, this judgment is not applicable in a particular case, even then the ultimate decision cannot be different from Hon'ble Supreme Court decision unless it is found that on all aspects, the judgment is not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S Liberty India vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Karnal on 31 August, 2009

5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited by both the sides. First we consider the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India (supra). For this purpose, we reproduce the discussions and findings of Hon'ble Apex Court as contained in Para 12 to 24 [3] of this judgment and for the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 862 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.,, Pune on 12 February, 2018

Hence, according to the Department, in the present cases, the first degree source is the incentive scheme/provisions of the Customs Act. In this connection, the Department places heavy reliance on the judgment of this court in Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579. Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business of an industrial undertaking, we need to trace the source of the profits to manufacture. (see CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. reported in [1986] 157 ITR 762.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 17 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 11 November, 2019

5.1 In the case of Arvind Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has no doubt considered this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. While working out the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that the same is contained in Para 17 and 18 of this Judgment. In Para 17 it is observed by the Hon'ble apex court that "The Rules do not envisage a refund of an amount arithmetically equal to customs duty or Central excise duty actually paid by an individual importer-cum-manufacturer". Thereafter, in Para 18 it is decided that "Analysing the concept of remission of duty drawback and DEPB, we are satisfied that the remission of duty is on account of the statutory/policy provisions in the Customs Act/Scheme(s) framed by the Government of India. In the circumstances, we hold that profits derived by way of such incentives do not fall within the expression " profits derived from industrial undertaking" in section 80-IB". Thereafter in Para 19 to 24, Hon'ble apex court has dealt with another objection raised by the counsel of the assessee although for the same issue that AS - 2 should be considered and even after that, the decision remained the same. Hence, it is seen that the ratio of the judgment is in Paras 17 & 18 which is further supported by Para 19 to 24. It is a settled law that even obiter dicta in the judgment of Hon'ble apex court is binding.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1