CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd.

300 ITR 6High Court2008#2507 most cited

What is CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. authority for?

Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act requires profits and gains to be derived from any business of an industrial undertaking, not necessarily a direct nexus between the industrial undertaking's activity and the profits.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. · 300 ITR 6 · section 80-IB · profits and gains · derived from any business of the industrial undertaking · industrial undertaking · direct nexus

Sections most often in play

Section 80IBSection 14ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 80IASection 80IC

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)section 80hactual payment basisopening wdvset off of lossessection 80hheligible businesssection 80ibsection 145asection 80ideduction under section 80iasection 80ic

Judgments citing CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd.

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 705/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 705/MUM/2013, : A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 3364/MUM/2014 & 3908/MUM/2016 Nhava Sheva International Container vs. ITO –2(2)(3), Mumbai Terminal Private Ltd., (Respondent) Level 1, Darabshaw House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. PAN : AABCN0185H (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Girish Dave Respondent by : Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR Date of Hearing : 18/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03/02/2020 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are ap…

Value Labs LLP, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, grounds pertaining to ‘other income’ are considered allowed and grounds pertaining to interest income are considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 392/HYD/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. ValueLabs LLP, Deputy Commissioner HYDERABAD Vs of Income Tax, [PAN: AAEFV9532G] Circle-8(1), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing : 04-01-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24-01-2018 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyd…

M/S Vodafone East Limited (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar East Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

DCIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. Vodafone Essar East Limited, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd., Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. Hutchison Telecom East Limited, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemical’s case, which relates to section 800HH, cannot be applied to the provision of sec. 80-I which is differently worded. In fact, attention is drawn to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltel SGDS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del), where it has been held as under: ‘A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in Section 80-HH of the Act and Section 80-IB of the Act. While Section 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, Section 80-IB of the Act requires that the profi…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be said to be forming a part of the profits of business of the industrial undertaking. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pandian Chemicals (supra) and Sterling Foods Ltd (supra) and distinguished them and held that the language used in section 80-lB is different from the language in section 80- HH/80-I. The expression u…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 8, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be said to be forming a part of the profits of business of the industrial undertaking. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pandian Chemicals (supra) and Sterling Foods Ltd (supra) and distinguished them and held that the language used in section 80-lB is different from the language in section 80- HH/80-I. The expression u…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ed to employees, as a result of the employment contract entered with such employees and in order to retain their services, also have first degree/immediate nexus with the manufacturing activity. e) The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd: 300 ITR 6 held that interest received by the assesse- company on the employees loan and on late payment from customers being linked to the business of the industrial undertaking was includible as business income and eligible for benefit under section 80IA of the Act. f) Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the decision of Delhi bench of Tribunal in the cas…

Prayas Writing Instruments, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

ITA 4483/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4483/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: ( 2008-09) आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Prayas Writing Instruments Dy. Cit – 24(3) Room No.701, C-11, 7Th Floor, Bandra 113, Sati Industrial Estate, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 063. Pan:Aagfp 6727 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Naveen Gupta-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 15.01.2013 Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pens, Ballpens, Mechanical Pencil & Their Parts & Components Etc., Filed Its Return On 30.9.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.05.10 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.20.60 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4483/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: ( 2008-09) आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Prayas Writing Instruments Dy. CIT – 24(3) Room No.701, C-11, 7th Floor, Bandra 113, Sati Industrial Estate, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) I.B. Pat…

M/S Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5035/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kampani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 80Section 801Section 80l

…sion made by the Id. AR. This issue has been decided 'in favour of the appellant by the undersigned for A. Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 21.01.2010 in appeal no. 91/07-08 basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (2008) 300 ITR 6 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench vide order dated 25.04.2008 in ITA No.4797/De1./2007 for A Y 2003- 04 in the case of the appellant company and also the fact that the; Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by the Revenue against the above IT AT order vide High Court's order dated 13.04.2009 in ITA…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 254(1)Section 80I

…Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be said to be forming a part of the profits of business of the industrial undertaking. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pandian Chemicals (supra) and Sterling Foods Ltd (supra)and distinguished them and held that the language used in section 80-IB is different from the language in section 80-HH/80-I. The expression use…

Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 8545/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8338/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Adcit-8(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8545/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Vs. Acit-8(2), Mumbai Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 10(1)Section 145ASection 14ASection 2(1)(a)Section 234BSection 80I

…rna Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, (:2005) 95 ITD 199 (Ahd) (SB) to support the contention that the sale of scrap would reduce the cost of raw material. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd., 300 ITR 6 (Del). 9. The learned D.R., on the other band, pointed out that the sale of empty drums was neither a bye-product nor scrap generated out of the manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee and determining the eligible profits. 10. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. Since the issue is covered by the decisions refe…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…to be taxed separately. The words used in Sec 80-IB are ‘profit and gains derived from any business’ are wide enough to cover the interest income. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS Private Ltd (300 ITR 6), and ACIT V. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (221 CTR 133). 5.3 We also found that exactly similar issue was considered by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-00, 2001-02, & 2003-04 for interest on FD kept as margin money to be considered as business income and Page 15 of 39 16 Jindal Drugs Ltd. deduction to be allowed u/s 80HHC. T…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…to be taxed separately. The words used in Sec 80-IB are ‘profit and gains derived from any business’ are wide enough to cover the interest income. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS Private Ltd (300 ITR 6), and ACIT V. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (221 CTR 133). 5.3 We also found that exactly similar issue was considered by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-00, 2001-02, & 2003-04 for interest on FD kept as margin money to be considered as business income and Page 15 of 39 16 Jindal Drugs Ltd. deduction to be allowed u/s 80HHC. T…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…to be taxed separately. The words used in Sec 80-IB are ‘profit and gains derived from any business’ are wide enough to cover the interest income. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS Private Ltd (300 ITR 6), and ACIT V. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (221 CTR 133). 5.3 We also found that exactly similar issue was considered by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-00, 2001-02, & 2003-04 for interest on FD kept as margin money to be considered as business income and Page 15 of 39 16 Jindal Drugs Ltd. deduction to be allowed u/s 80HHC. T…