Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Section 44AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
V.D. Swami And Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 August, 1992
16. As we see it, from whichever angle we approach the matter - whether from the angle of Section 80HHC(3)(a) or from the angle of Section 80HHC(3)(b) - the deduction admissible to the assessee Is 'NIL'. If, as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of V.D. Swami & Co. Ltd. (supra), the main thrust of Section 80HHC is that the profits attributable to the export business must be identifiable, then we have before us a clear case of loss arising out of export business and that consequently, deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act will be nil.
Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,.West ... on 16 January, 1953
If, on the other hand, we proceed on the footing that the assessee's case is covered by Section 80HHC(3)(b), we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the aggregate amount of Rs. 9,37,693 must be regarded as turnover for the purpose of Section 80HHC of the Act. For more than one reason. First, while setting out proposition No. 2 we have already adumbrated how Section 80HHC(3) itself makes a distinction between turnover and profits. Secondly, it is well settled that whenever the right to receive money in the course of trading transactions accrues or arises, or the money is realised, the profit or the income embedded in the receipt also arises or accrues or is received. Thus, in the case of Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 152 the Supreme Court at page 161 of the Report observed:
Raja Mohan Raja Bahadur vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P on 6 April, 1967
Again in the case of Raja Mohan Raja Bahadur v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 378 Supreme Court observed at p. 382 of the Report:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1