COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. RESEARCH PARK LAB. LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the entire profits, including commission income, should be considered for the deduction under Section 80HHC. The High Court upheld this view, following Supreme Court decisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee received commission on the assignment of export orders. The revenue questioned whether this commission should be included in the profits for calculating deduction under Section 80HHC.
What were the issues?
Whether commission income received on assignment of export orders is includible in profits for Section 80HHC deduction.
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.
- (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports68 citing290 ITR 323 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT37 citing284 ITR 548 · 2006 · SC · Read judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 06.01.2010
+ ITR 8/2001 & ITR 16/2001
COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S INTERNATILONAL RESEARCH PARK LAB. LTD
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner
: Ms P. L. Bansal with Mr Paras Chaudhry For the Respondent : None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In these two references for the assessment years 1990-1991 and 1991- 1992, the following questions were referred to us for our decision:- (1) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that for determining the quantum of deduction in respect of profits derived from export u/s 80HHC, the entire profits computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” including the income of the nature of commission is to be taken into account?
(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that commission received by the assessee on assignment of export orders to another party in India will form part of profits eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC?
It is not necessary for us to examine these questions in detail inasmuch as 2010:DHC:4-DB
view of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of P. R. Prabhakar v. CIT : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) and CIT v. Baby Marine Exports : (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC). Consequently, both the questions referred to us in these references are decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, following the Supreme Court decision referred to above. The references stand answered accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JANUARY 06, 2010 SR
2010:DHC:4-DB
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026