(CIT v. Baby Marine Exports

Ktm India vs. ACIT Circle

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…ible for deduction u/s. 80IB. For this, he has relied upon the case laws mentioned above. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been categorically held that export house premium received by assessee as a supporting manufacturer forms an integral part of the sale price realized by the assessee from the export house. Besides, for the proposition that DEPB received by the assessee is an integral part of 4 ITA No.141/Del./2008 turnover of assessee, as a…

M/S. A K Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6859/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 A. K. Capital Markets Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca9960D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order

…gislative intent behind a provision, it is well settled, is to be the foundational basis for any interpretative exercise [refer: Padmasundara Rao (Decd.) and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)], and has guided our said interpretation. 3.3 In the admitted facts of the case, the assessee has income from advisory charges and brokerage at Rs.121.81 lacs and Rs.14.93 lacs respectively. Its other incomes are rent; dividend; and capital gains (long-term), at Rs.6.39 lacs, Rs.3.41 lacs and Rs.19.68 lacs respectively. Quite plainly, the as…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A), Faridabad, Dated 27.12.2011 & 20.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1321/Del/2012:

…is not eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the following facts:- i) The facts and circumstances of the instant case are different and distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT vs Baby Marine Export (290 ITR 323). The reliance placed on this case by the Ld. CIT(A) is misplaced. ii) Export incentive in the instant case is received from the Government of India on account of provisions of Exim Policy while 'Export Premium' in the Baby Marine Exports (Supra) is received from the export house through which export is made. iii) The reliance is placed on the de…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Qh Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A), Faridabad, Dated 27.12.2011 & 20.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1321/Del/2012:

…is not eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the following facts:- i) The facts and circumstances of the instant case are different and distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT vs Baby Marine Export (290 ITR 323). The reliance placed on this case by the Ld. CIT(A) is misplaced. ii) Export incentive in the instant case is received from the Government of India on account of provisions of Exim Policy while 'Export Premium' in the Baby Marine Exports (Supra) is received from the export house through which export is made. iii) The reliance is placed on the de…

M/S Lotus Trans Travels P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are dismissed

…a in sub Section (3). Mr. Vohra submitted that this reasoning of the Tribunal is approved by the Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar Vs. CIT. 284, ITR 548. He also referred to another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Baby Marine Exports, 290 ITR 323 wherein the Court reiterated the position of law that deduction under Section 80 HHC had to be quantified with reference to profits computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, even though not strictly derived from export. In that case, it was held that export premium received by supporting manufacturer for sale o…

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Research Park Lab. Ltd

…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…

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Research Park Lab. Ltd

…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…