COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. RESEARCH PARK LAB. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITR/16/2001HC Delhi06 January 20102 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the entire profits computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession', including commission income, should be considered for the Section 80HHC deduction. This decision was upheld by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The case involves two references for assessment years 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 concerning the deduction under Section 80HHC. The core dispute was whether commission income should be included in the profits for calculating the deduction.

What were the issues?

The key issues were whether commission income should be included in the profits for calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC and if commission received on assignment of export orders was eligible for this deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

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

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

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:5-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:5-DB

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →