COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LIMITED

ITA - 815 / 2007HC Delhi23 December 20097 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that interest earned on FDR and security deposit with the Government Department should not be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating deduction under Section 80HHC. This decision was based on previous judgments and the language of the section.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer included interest on FDR and security deposit in the total turnover for calculating this deduction. The CIT(A) and ITAT deleted this disallowance, holding it in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income from FDR and security deposits should be included in the total turnover for computing deduction under Section 80HHC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 16 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 815 of 2007 Reserved on: 10th November, 2009 %

Pronounced on : 23rd December, 2009

Commissioner of Income Tax

. . . Appellant

through : Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate.

VERSUS

Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited

. . .Respondent

through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates.

CORAM :-

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.

Three following questions of law are sought to be raised in this appeal: a) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,06,52,765/- made by the Assessing Officer out of total claim of Rs.4,26,11,059/- on account of royalty expenses, treating the same as revenue expenditure?

b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the entire payment of royalty as well as foreign technician fee made by

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →