Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Davanam Jewellers on 21 July, 2010 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007

it is ciear it is not the receipt oi; '9(§% <)f"'f;'iieA:'eiit'i'ije44commission. it is 90% receipt of comniisvsieii inciuded iii profits and gains of business. In fact \A.}'iiAat',.:t5et'.v1i the Appellaie Authorities have held relying on ism-+'1ja1 "j1ic!gi*ne'13'ts of the V.E11'iOllS Courts Though there appe'ai's..__1"d -be no direct decision in so far as commission is h cQncernee1, .sL:pp0i't is drawn fr()n'1 oitzer jt:c1gme11t's which have _ 'El- bC3'£:'iI1g on the subject"- The Apex Court: in the case of = .C(5MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LAKSHMI MACHINE 13/ WORKS [ (2007) 290 ITR 667] while d€?£'tI]'11g_...F\;\g" 1 i::'i .é§?(.?vi'i{)i1 SOHHC has held as under : ~ 2 V M i V "The principal reason '_ei-?1aC;i'ir.z:gi formuia under 8. 80H}--{C i.ti:as;"1!"o par: SOHHC concession i.irJ.:en..__ U'1t'.'v"'-g_,'1"'i.[i'I'Ve' evr{¢'d;u<:,z__;f;;;1_.¥ claimed could not be aS~._I'eiiciia.i3ie to exporis. 'I'f1.eref0i'e--,_whiie'"'in.iVer,nr'eiir1g wards "total llunover" in i:'i':!e_fk):*zi1ifiCz} one has to give a sChen_'ia:'l.i<3_ "ii"!Ii;'I']jfe('.af:iQr'2". i0 that expressi'o.n«.':.j"f'aer'e:;A_is for giving schenqqliie 7fi€':"l§3QI:I'OLlS amendments (.0 S. V reéreiprs by way of ir1iei'es1. rent eicn, do not:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 324 - Full Document

Hero Exports,G.T. Road, Ludhiana vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Central), ... on 20 November, 2007

intended to have CI ']t)r'Ii:i.iEioi Io ase'erI;a'iri ejrporl prqms by appOm1jmj_ng i._l'ze"'I.(>'i.o.:i .bii's.iness fjrojiis on hihe basis of iurnooers.* of profiis on {he basis ofi'iu'noi,ier-uéijisViziecepiecl no method of arriving case of HERO EXPORTS vs COMMISSIGISIEE2 TAX [(2007) 295 ITR 4541511. para 14 heiLi._eisv.und_Cf 2yisse..':.s_iec:v has UUO incomes with "one con1rz1onA"pooI of expenses' and since "principle of 'VCI'CI;ifib_iLIfi5ii.'fiias been retained in the scheme of s. ""2f§OPI.i.IC.'i__hoih in terms ofsecnion 8OHHC (3), cl. {e} to .4'"zi;e"'--'sxpi¢m.aiion to 8OHHC(3){a), {b} and (C) and in s Cl. {boa} to the Explanation to 801--IHC. instead of goiiig into lengthy exercise ofdiviciing such common expenses, the assessee has esiim.ai'ed the reduction ~: I} :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 45 - Full Document
1