AAMIR KHATRI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that DEPB income is intrinsically linked to export activity and should not be artificially segregated for gross profit computation. The addition made by excluding DEPB income from turnover was deemed unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment order was revised under Section 263, leading to a higher addition by excluding DEPB income from turnover for gross profit calculation. The assessee argued that DEPB income is part of export business and should be included in gross profit.
What were the issues?
Whether DEPB income is operating income and part of export business turnover for gross profit calculation, and if the revision under Section 263 was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Liberty India v. CIT571 citing183 Taxmann 349 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- Topman Exports v. CIT121 citing18 Taxmann.com 120 · 2012 · SC · Read judgment
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 25/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax – 21(1), Mumbai (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, date of order 21/08/2017. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:-
2 Aamir Khat
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026