CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair

295 ITR 228Supreme Court of India2007#2018 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair authority for?

The computation of deduction under Section 80HHC requires applying the formula: Profits derived from exports = (Profits of the business x Export Turnover) / Total Turnover. For this calculation, miscellaneous income, sundry sales, and income from services, if not directly relatable to export activity, are generally to be excluded from "profits of the business" and "total turnover".

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair · Section 80HHC deduction · computation of 80HHC profits · export turnover · total turnover · profits of the business · miscellaneous income · sundry sales · income from services · 295 ITR 228 · Section 80HHC(3)(a) · Explanation (baa) to 80HHC

Also reported as

165 Taxmann 282

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 145A

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)illegal paymentsection 80absection 80hsection 80hhcsection 80hhexplanation to section 37computer softwaresection 80aprofits and gains of business or professionbook profitspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair

M/S VARDHMAN POLYTEX LTD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

ITA/556/2008HC Punjab & Haryana08 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 10BSection 80Section 80H

…decide the aforesaid question of law accordingly in favour of the assessee. 11. We notice that the Gujarat High Court also considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228/165 Taxman 285 and found that the same has been passed on its own facts and would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.14 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [7] ITA-597-2008 (O&M) and connected cases. 12. As regards…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & CO 76/MUM/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACH2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-40002…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6th& 7th Floor 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire BKC M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACH2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1) v. M/s. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba G…

UNITED PHOSPORUS LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8387/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8375/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD (KNOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3251/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

MMTC LTD. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1),,

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

….2010 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 2186 of 2009, the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. while distinguishing the judgment in Bangalore Clothing Company 260 ITR 371 (Bom.) and relying the judgment in Ravindranathan Nair 295 ITR 228 (SC). 13. Appreciating the submissions and the matter on record it can be observe that in the case in had the Ld. AO referred to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax 113 ITR 84 and Commissioner Of Income Tax, vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore, 237 ITR 579, to hold the disputed incomes to be…

PREETHA S. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/COCH/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypreetha S. Nair Asst. Cit, Circle - 1 Nut Products Company Kollam Kochupilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abdpn1379H]

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 80H

…ent’s appeal, questions 1 and 2 pertain to computation of eligible profit for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Both these questions are covered by decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (2007) 295 ITR 228. So far as third question is concerned, we find the Tribunal has only followed the decision of this court and allowed the assessee’s claim. Following the judgement of the Supreme Court referred above, we allow the appeal in part by 2 Preetha S. Nair v. Asst. CIT setting aside the order of the Tribunal and that of the C.I.T. (Appeal) pertaining to…

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

ITA 1039/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…r for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC. 66 As regards the miscellaneous income is concerned, the issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Ravindranathan Nair reported in 295 ITR 228. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the deduction in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra).‖ 19. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to either include or exclude in the ‗turnover‘ the amount of sundry sales, sales o…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1798/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 801ASection 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…coordinate bench vide order dated 13th July 2009 set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with direction to decide the issue after consideration with judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of CIT vs. K Ravindranath Nair reported in 295 ITR 228 and the bench also directed that if there is nexus between interest income and interest expenses then only net interest income should be excluded. However the authority below again confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee failed to establish nexus that interest/ other income relate with the export business or there were corresponding e…

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 801ASection 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…coordinate bench vide order dated 13th July 2009 set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with direction to decide the issue after consideration with judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of CIT vs. K Ravindranath Nair reported in 295 ITR 228 and the bench also directed that if there is nexus between interest income and interest expenses then only net interest income should be excluded. However the authority below again confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee failed to establish nexus that interest/ other income relate with the export business or there were corresponding e…

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2072/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…of provision of Explanation (baa) to 21 ITA 3092/Mum/2016 ITA 2072/Mum/2010 processing charges and sales tax refund and setoff. As regards the processing charges, the issues is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) in which it has been held that the processing charges form an independent item of income like commission rent etc. and, therefore, 90% of the same is required to be reduced from profit of business as per Explanation (baa). We therefore hold the processing charges will be covered by Explanation (baa). The issue of applicability of provision of Ex…

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3187/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…of provision of Explanation (baa) to 21 ITA 3092/Mum/2016 ITA 2072/Mum/2010 processing charges and sales tax refund and setoff. As regards the processing charges, the issues is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) in which it has been held that the processing charges form an independent item of income like commission rent etc. and, therefore, 90% of the same is required to be reduced from profit of business as per Explanation (baa). We therefore hold the processing charges will be covered by Explanation (baa). The issue of applicability of provision of Ex…

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…of provision of Explanation (baa) to 21 ITA 3092/Mum/2016 ITA 2072/Mum/2010 processing charges and sales tax refund and setoff. As regards the processing charges, the issues is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) in which it has been held that the processing charges form an independent item of income like commission rent etc. and, therefore, 90% of the same is required to be reduced from profit of business as per Explanation (baa). We therefore hold the processing charges will be covered by Explanation (baa). The issue of applicability of provision of Ex…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.G.T.N.INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/1699/2009HC Kerala15 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 115JSection 14ASection 260ASection 80H

…fact in interfering with the "another disallowance on account of 80HHC deduction" noted in paragraph 7 of its order based on the decision reported in 248 ITR 372 ad is not the interference and the decision relied on wrong and against the decision reported in 295 ITR 228 (SC)? I.T.A. No.1699/2009 -4- 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is not the computation of book profits under section 115JB to work out the eligible deduction for the purpose of section 80HHC benefit against law and the intendment of the legislature? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…1 ITA Nos.3379 & 3046/Mum/2009 M/s Novartis India Limited Assessment Year: 2001-02 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ―बी‖ न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―B‖ BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री रवीश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3379/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 2. Cross Objection No.218/Mum/2009 (Arising out of ITA No.3046/Mum/2009) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) Novartis India Limited ACIT-7(2)(2) 6th &7th Floor, Inspire BKC 1…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

ITA/420/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 43BSection 80H

…e excluded to the extent of 90% it 12 must be a receipt of nature similar to brokerage, commission, interest, rent or charges. It is also pointed out that the decision in the case of CIT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM V. K.RAVINDRANATH NAIR (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC) does not deal with the issue of business profits but with total turnover. It is further submitted that a receipt for rendering technical services does not fall within the scope of exclusion contemplated by clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80HHC and the aforesaid position was conceded in case of assessee for the subsequent yea…

INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

In the result, the appeals are

ITA/6/2011HC Karnataka11 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.6/2011 C/W I.T.A. NO.7/2011 & I.T.A. NO.8/2011 I.T.A. NO.6/2011 BETWEEN: INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED PLOT NO.35, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA BIDADI, BANGALORE-562109 (REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. P.R. SHUBHAKAR) PREVIOUSLY AT SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK IV UNIT NOS.411 & 412 I FLOOR, ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV., FOR M/S. KING &…

INDIAN RESINS & POLYMERS,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 720/COCH/2019[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2020AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 154Section 80H

…estored on the questions raised by the revenue before the court". The only question raised by the revenue before the Hon High Court is treatment of interest on FD. 3(b)The CIT(A) ought to have been convinced that the limited issue before the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 228 ( on which the High Court has relied) was only on the question of inclusion or otherwise of Raw cashew nuts processing charges in the total turnover for computing 80HHC. He ought to have seen that the AO went beyond his jurisdiction to give a new interpretation to the decision of SC in 295 ITR 228. 4) 234B interest charged by the AO from the date…

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) — Cited in 57 Judgments | BharatTax