CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd.

275 ITR 284High Court2005#9620 most cited

What is CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The duty drawback scheme aims to reimburse exporters for tariffs paid on imported raw materials and domestic excise duties on inputs used in export production. This reimbursement is intended to neutralize increased production costs and maintain export competitiveness.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. · duty drawback scheme · reimbursement of tariffs · excise duties · export production · cost of production · competitiveness of exports · Nexus between duty payment and drawback

Judgments citing CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd.

M/S. Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 769/AHD/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr DR
Section 112(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80GSection 80H

…14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time when the assessee made the claim for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. as reported in 275 ITR 284 was in favour of the assessee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim made by the assessee for deduction was not bona fide. He submitted that there was no income for the relevant assessment year the assessee was not liable to income tax excluding the MAT calculation and, therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble De…

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…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A) 3, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5537/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Syngenta India Ltd., The Dy. Cit 1(3), Amar Paradigm, Mumbai Vs. S N 110/11/3 Baner Road, Pune 411 045 Pan Aaecs9424P (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A K Nayak
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…s confirmed by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2001-02, which was on 05.11.2012. Before the CIT(A) also, the assessee reiterated its explanation and submitted that claim of deduction was based on following judicial precedents: i) CIT vs. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 275 ITR 284, judgment dated 08.04.2004 ii) ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO vs. Kiran Enterprises 92 TTJ 104 iii) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Kripa Chemicals Private Ltd. 82 ITD 449 Besides these it was submitted that it was only after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218, which w…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

ITTA/571/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Commissioner of Income tax -III vs. Srilekha Hire Purchase AND Finance Pvt. Limited

ITTA/202/2008HC Telangana02 Feb 2012

C.I.T vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA/251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

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

Section 80I

…as a direct and immediate nexus between payment of duty on such inputs and receipt of duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 284. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that there was no difference between Advance Licence Scheme and duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection it was urged that duty drawback regime required the industrial undertaking to pay in the first instance the duty on ITA No. 251 of 2008 Page 10 of 18 i…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA-251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 80I

…as a direct and immediate nexus between payment of duty on such inputs and receipt of duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 284. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that there was no difference between Advance Licence Scheme and duty 2009:DHC:5672-DB inputs and thereafter seek reimbursement on profit of goods manufactured using such duty paid inputs, having been exported. The industrial undertaking alternatively could avail of Advance Licence Sch…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited

Appeal is partly allowed, as aforesaid

ITA-815/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 5Section 80Section 80H

…as a direct and immediate nexus between payment of duty on such inputs and receipt of duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 284. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that there was no difference between Advance Licence Scheme and duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection it was urged that duty drawback regime required the industrial undertaking to pay in the first instance the duty on inputs and thereafter seek reimbursement on profit of go…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited

Appeal is partly allowed, as aforesaid

ITA - 815 / 2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 5Section 80Section 80H

…as a direct and immediate nexus between payment of duty on such inputs and receipt of duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 284. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that there was no difference between Advance Licence Scheme and duty drawback/DEPB. In this connection it was urged that duty drawback regime required the industrial undertaking to pay in the first instance the duty on inputs and thereafter seek reimbursement on profit of go…

M/S Liberty India vs. Commr.of Income Tax, Karnal

C.A. No.-005891-005891 - 2009Supreme Court31 Aug 2009
Section 260ASection 80

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. of 2009 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5827/07) M/s Liberty India … Appellant(s) versus Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent(s) with Civil Appeal Nos. /09 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22083-22084/07), Civil Appeal No. /09 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7956-7957/08), Civil Appeal No. /09 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11416/08), Civil Appeal No. /09 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16875/08), Civil Appeal No. /09 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11404/08), Civil…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eltek Sgs P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 643 / 2007HC Delhi19 Feb 2008
Section 260Section 80

…ertaking and the profits and gains. 2008:DHC:592-DB ITA No.643/2007 Page 8 of 12 14. This issue, particularly in relation to duty drawback, came up for consideration in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd., [2005] 275 ITR 284. While considering the object of the duty drawback scheme, the Gujarat High Court explained it in the following terms – “The object of the duty drawback scheme is to reimburse exporters for tariffs paid on the imported raw materials and intermediates and Central excise duties paid on domestically produced inputs which enter into export p…

CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. (275 ITR 284) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax