CIT v. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi

318 ITR 420High Court2009#3101 most cited

What is CIT v. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi authority for?

Interest income earned by an assessee on fixed deposits and other interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi · 318 ITR 420 · Section 80-IA · interest income · eligible for deduction · fixed deposits · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 80IBSection 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 80IASection 10(15)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)section 80hactual payment basisopening wdvset off of lossessection 80hheligible businesssection 145asection 80ibinfrastructure facilitysection 40a(2)(b)section 80i

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi

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

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

ITA 3364/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

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

…ssee by holding as under : 3. The deduction under both the aforesaid heads under Section 80IA of the Act was disallowed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. It followed the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 318 ITR 420 which has held that the words 'derived from' means something which has direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking. Thus, the claim for deduction on the above heads was disallowed under Section 80IA of the Act. 4. Mr. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal points out that Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was…

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

…ssee by holding as under : 3. The deduction under both the aforesaid heads under Section 80IA of the Act was disallowed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. It followed the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 318 ITR 420 which has held that the words 'derived from' means something which has direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking. Thus, the claim for deduction on the above heads was disallowed under Section 80IA of the Act. 4. Mr. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal points out that Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

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

ITA 1244/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri M.K. Kulkarni and S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…R (Bom) 100, wherein interest on bank deposits was held ITA Nos.1176 & 1244/PUN/2015 11 to be profits and gains of business derived from business of industrial undertaking and it had distinguished the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 318 ITR 420 (SC). The next reliance was on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi (2009) 318 ITR 420 (Bom), CIT Vs. Shah Alloys Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 711 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (2008) 76 CCH 249 (Del). 19. Another point which was raised in respect of bank interest was that most of the bank deposits were made…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1176/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri M.K. Kulkarni and S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…R (Bom) 100, wherein interest on bank deposits was held ITA Nos.1176 & 1244/PUN/2015 11 to be profits and gains of business derived from business of industrial undertaking and it had distinguished the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 318 ITR 420 (SC). The next reliance was on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi (2009) 318 ITR 420 (Bom), CIT Vs. Shah Alloys Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 711 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (2008) 76 CCH 249 (Del). 19. Another point which was raised in respect of bank interest was that most of the bank deposits were made…

Premier Nutraceutical Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7148/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…assessee also relied on the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 6225/Mum/2017 vide order dated 07.02.2018, the Tribunal considering the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [2009] 318 ITR 420 (Bombay) allowed the claim of deduction in respect of interest income under section 10A of the Act vide Para 7 and 8 ad under: - “7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Assessee is engaged in business of trading and manufacturing in pharmaceutical products. Assessee imported the raw material from Japan and letter of credit wa…

Premier Nutraceutical Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6226/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…assessee also relied on the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 6225/Mum/2017 vide order dated 07.02.2018, the Tribunal considering the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [2009] 318 ITR 420 (Bombay) allowed the claim of deduction in respect of interest income under section 10A of the Act vide Para 7 and 8 ad under: - “7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Assessee is engaged in business of trading and manufacturing in pharmaceutical products. Assessee imported the raw material from Japan and letter of credit wa…

M/S Brooks Laboratories Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…ly related to the manufacturing activities of the assessee and thus taxable as business income eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of his above contentions: 1) CIT Vs. Jagdish Prasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 420 (Bom) 2) CIT & Anr. Vs. Hajee Jaffar Shariff (2010) 40 DTR 81 3) CIT Vs. Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd., 245 IUTR 806 4) DCIT Vs. Transpower Pvt. Ltd.,80 ITD 001 8. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the denial of deduction u/s 80IC should in any case be restricted to the net interest income earned after setting off interest expenses incurred on…

DCIT (OSD) Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly

ITA 2935/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 115J

…sessee by holding as under: 3. The deduction under both the aforesaid heads under Section 80IA of the Act was disallowed by the impugned order of the Tribunal.It followed the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs. Pandian Chem icals Ltd. 318 ITR 420 which has held that thewords 'derived from' means somethi ng which has direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking. Thus, the claim for deduction on the above heads was disallowed under Section 80IA of the Act. 4.Mr. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing in support of theappeal points out that Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was re…

Heinz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…rendered in the context of Sec. 80HH of the Act, which is materially differently worded than Sec. 80IC of the Act. In support, the learned representative relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 420 (Bom.), 23 M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. wherein interest income on deposits was held eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. It has been pointed out that in the case before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Revenue had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra), which was found distinguish…

Premier Nutraceutical Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Premier Nutraceutical Pvt. Dcit-13(1)(2), Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., 702, A-Wing, Bonanza, Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar Plaza, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaccp9121E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Smt N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 10ASection 80

…Karnataka High Court (Full Bench) in the case of CIT vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 182). He also 3 M/s. Premier Nutraceutical Pvt. Ltd. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi (318 ITR 420), 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Revenue Authorities. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Assessee is engaged in business of trading and manufacturing in pharmaceutical products. Assessee imported the raw material from Japan and letter of credit was issued by the bank. Against the letter of credit assessee was required t…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…SEB should be assessed under the head income from business and not under the head income from other sources. 1. CIT Vs. Paramount Premises Ltd. [190 ITR 259] (Bom) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CIT [323 ITR 312] (Cal) 3. CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [318 ITR 420] (Bom) 12. The Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and submits that interest on fixed deposits can never be income from business as the Assessee is not into money lending, but engaged in the business of manufacturing of…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…SEB should be assessed under the head income from business and not under the head income from other sources. 1. CIT Vs. Paramount Premises Ltd. [190 ITR 259] (Bom) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CIT [323 ITR 312] (Cal) 3. CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [318 ITR 420] (Bom) 12. The Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and submits that interest on fixed deposits can never be income from business as the Assessee is not into money lending, but engaged in the business of manufacturing of…

M.K. Industries, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6416/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S M. K. Industries The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 182, Aram Nagar Part Ii, Opp. Tax, Circle 15(2) Pramal Bldg, J.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400061 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aajfm0500A .. Shri Harsh Kothari, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 28-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…08, dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99, on the ground that, no substantial question of law involved since Page 2 of 4 ITA No.6416/Mum/2013 & M/s M. K. Industries.; AY.09-10 reported in CIT v/s. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420. The Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) from the order of this Court dated 25th November, 2008, dismissing Revenue's Appeal for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The SLP has been admitted on 7th March, 2011. 8. In view of the fact that the question raised by the Revenue stands concluded by an or…

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

…rest 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. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420 (Bom) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Del). 5.4 The assessee has also raised alternate claim for excluding only net interest income and not the gross interest while computing the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IB and for this purpose reliance was placed on the de…

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

…rest 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. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420 (Bom) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Del). 5.4 The assessee has also raised alternate claim for excluding only net interest income and not the gross interest while computing the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IB and for this purpose reliance was placed on the de…

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

…rest 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. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420 (Bom) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Del). 5.4 The assessee has also raised alternate claim for excluding only net interest income and not the gross interest while computing the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IB and for this purpose reliance was placed on the de…

ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai vs. M/S. 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 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

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

…rest 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. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420 (Bom) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Del). 5.4 The assessee has also raised alternate claim for excluding only net interest income and not the gross interest while computing the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IB and for this purpose reliance was placed on the de…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. M/S. 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 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

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

…rest 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. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi 318 ITR 420 (Bom) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Del). 5.4 The assessee has also raised alternate claim for excluding only net interest income and not the gross interest while computing the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IB and for this purpose reliance was placed on the de…