ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai

Q: How many judgments cite ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai (3 SCC 321), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 12, Section 12(4)(b), Section 12(5)(a), Section 14.

3 SCC 321Reported decision2022#1267 most cited

What is ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai authority for?

Profits of a business are computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and then reduced by specific receipts mentioned in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This means that for the purposes of Section 80HHC, only profits computed under the business head are considered, with subsequent adjustments for specified receipts.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited · Section 80HHC · Explanation (baa) · profits of the business · computation of profits · business income · income from other sources

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 12 Section 12(4)(b)Section 12(5)(a)Section 14 Section 142(1)Section 144C

Issues it is cited on

make available clause copyrighted article fees for included services section 90(2)section 9(1)(vi)fees for technical services permanent establishment section 9(1)(vii)section 195 tax treaty section 9(1)non-resident

Judgments citing ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P.Ltd

ITA - 591 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012

Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…ITA No. 591/2008 and connected matters 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA NOS. 591/2008 Reserved on: 1st May, 2012 % Date of Decision: 1st June, 2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V ...Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. VERSUS NAGESH KNITWEARS P. LTD. ...Respondent Through Mr. Salil Aggarwal & Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocates. ITA NOS. 993/2008, 994/2008,996/2008, 1010/2008 &955/2009, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd

ITA/591/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012

Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

Essel Shyam Communication Ltd

ITA/130/2011HC Delhi17 May 2012

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The First Appellate Authority. 2. By Order Dated 12Th July, 2011, The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Framed In The Respective Itas:-

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…ITANo.130/2011 Page 1 of 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 130/2011 Reserved on : 15th March, 2012. % Date of Decision : 17th May, 2012. ESSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION LTD. .... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …..Respondent Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. + INCOME TAX APPE…

Polyplex Corporation Ltd

The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA - 1005 / 2011HC Delhi27 Apr 2012

Section 115JSection 28Section 80Section 80H

…. In Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra), it has been observed that netting is permissible for computation under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This view has been upheld by the Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Mumbai), (2012) 3 SCC 321 observing: - “…9. Explanation (baa) extracted above states that "profits of the business" means the profits of the business as computed under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" as reduced by the receipts of the nature mentioned in Clauses (1) and (2) of the Explanation (baa). Thus, profits of the business of an Assessee…

Polyplex Corporation Ltd

The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA/1005/2011HC Delhi27 Apr 2012

Section 115JSection 28Section 80Section 80H

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S High Polymer Labs Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/133/2006HC Delhi19 Apr 2012

Section 28Section 80H

…incomes can be taken into consideration while applying Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. The issue is no longer in dispute and has been answered in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai (2012) 3 SCC 321. In this decision, it has been held :- 2012:DHC:2625-DB ITA 133/2006 Page 4 of 7 “11. Before we deal with the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, we may extract Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act : “Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-…

Commissioner of Income Tax XI vs. Arvind Kumar Jain

ITA/589/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 2

…ITA 589/2011 Page 1 of 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 589 OF 2011 Judgment Reserved On: 19.09.2011 % Judgment Delivered On:30.9.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR JAIN . . RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arvind Kumar Jain

ITA-589/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Section 2

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Raj Kumar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1130/2007HC Delhi14 May 2009

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr S.K. Khurana, Advocate

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This interpretation would alloy the rule of purposive construction with noscitur a sociis, as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India vs Retd. LIC Officers Assn. (2008) 3 SCC 321. The observation in para 24 of the report being apposite are extracted hereinbelow:- “Each word employed in a statute must take colour from the purport and object for which it is used. The principle of purposive interpretation, therefore, should be taken recourse to”. 11. A close examination of the judgment of the Bombay High Court i…