CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair

295 ITR 228Supreme Court of India2007#2017 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 366,421 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
Read the full judgment

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. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. DCIT, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile known as Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. PAN No. AAACG1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. CIT, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile known as Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House,…

Al-Azi Polymers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Al-Azi Polymers, The Asst. Commissioner 1 Net Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Ward 21(3), Andheri East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Aagfa4589A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 2(20)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…a/c has no proximate and direct nexus with export. The Incomes which have no nexus to export are independent incomes and not the operational income and hence they are not to be reduced under explanation (baa) of 80HHC as held in case of K Ravindranathan Nair 295 ITR 228(SC) and Dresser Rand India Ltd 232 CTR 52 (Bom). This view is also supported by the decision in case of Sword Global 122 ITD 103(Chennai), Global Vantedge P. Ltd. 1 ITR (trib) 326(Del), etc. The activity of making FDR was not the business activity of the undertaking and hence even if such deposit is required for the purpose eligible business so f…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITR 144 (SC). 5 ITA Nos. 1858 & 1980/Mds/2011 (AY 2004-05) 6. We have heard the parties, and carefully perused the order by the tribunal in the assessee’s case for A.Y 2003-04 (supra). With reference to the decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 295 ITR 228 and 290 ITR 667, the rationale for the exclusion of the independent incomes in the computation of the export profits stands explained. We find no reason for a different view, save qua ‘income’ by way of sale of scrap in view of the decision in Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (supra). We do likewise, including remission, for the same reason/s, a…

Rollatainers Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is partly allowed in respect of

ITA/166/2004HC Delhi16 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 260ASection 80H

…us with export turnover and, therefore, the inclusion of such items in the profits of the business would result in a distortion of the figure of export profits. The High Court has relied on a decision of this Court in CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC) in which the issue raised before this Court was entirely different from the issue raised in this case. In that case, the assessee owned a factory in which he processed cashew nuts grown in his farm and he exported the cashew nuts as an exporter. At the same time, the assessee processed cashew nuts which were supplied to him by exporters…

DCIT 20(2), Mumbai vs. M.M. Internaitonal, Mumbai

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

ITA 2890/MUM/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 80H

…of the business as per Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. In the present case, the appellant is not covered by the said Explanation. That case was relating to a manufacturer of exported goods. The Bombay High Court relied on the ratio of Ravindranathan Nair 295 ITR 228 (SC) and held that Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC required receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports to be reduced from business profits under clause (baa) so as to avoid distortion in the computation of export profits. This case is not relevant to those assessee's who are not manufactures and are not covered by Explana…

M/S. Mirabelle International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. Mirabelle International, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13/14, Windsor Mansion, Income Tax, Circle-31(1), 14Th Janpath Lane, New Delhi 1405, Floor, Civic Centre, Delhi. Pan : Aabfm1743P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Charu Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/02/2014 By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2002-03, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxvi Is Wrong Is Deterring The Total Income At Rs. 2,55,22,744/-. Ii. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Wrong Is Ignoring All Material Fact & Evidence & Evidence Produced Before Him While Computing The Total Income. Iii. That The Computation Of Total Income Is Bad In Law & Is Against The Actual Facts & Evidence On Record.

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80H

…over and, therefore, the inclusion of such items in the profits of the business would result in a distortion of the figure of export profits. The High Court has relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. K. Ravindranathan Nair [(2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC)] in which the issue raised before this Court was entirely different from the issue raised in this case. In that case, the assessee owned a factory in which he processed cashew nuts grown in his farm and he exported the cashew nuts as an exporter. At the same time, the assessee processed cashew nuts which were supplied to him by exporters on…

Adnani Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in this judgment

ITA 3734/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2002-03 M/S Adnani Enterprises, Acit-14(2), 3, Dadi Mansion, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Behind Metro Cinema, Earnest House, Vs. Cinema Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400024 Pan No.Aaefa6895R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 28Section 80H

…e the amount which bears to the profits of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such goods bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC), the formula in sub-section (3)(a) of Section 80HHC was stated by this Court to be as follows: Profits derived = Profits of the business x Export Turnover from exports from export Total Turnover 20. Explanation (baa) under Section 80HHC states that “profits of the business” in the aforesaid formula means the profits of the business as comp…

M/S New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…step removed from the business” and the derivation of profits on the deposit made “cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself”. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 specifically in the context of the provisions of section 80HHC. 6.4. The transaction of export in the case of the appellant is complete in all respects upon the repatriation of the proceeds. It lies within the discretion of the appellant as to whether the export proceeds should be received in a rupee equivalent in the entirety or whether a portio…

New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5126/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…step removed from the business” and the derivation of profits on the deposit made “cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself”. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 specifically in the context of the provisions of section 80HHC. 6.4. The transaction of export in the case of the appellant is complete in all respects upon the repatriation of the proceeds. It lies within the discretion of the appellant as to whether the export proceeds should be received in a rupee equivalent in the entirety or whether a portio…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Robert Bosch (India)Ltd

In the result, the question formulated by us is

ITA/507/2007HC Karnataka10 Oct 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 260

…learned counsel for the parties on the question of law reformulated by us. Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue, at the out set, invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –vs- K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC) to contend that Clause (d) of the Explanation appended to Section 80HHE state that 90% of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of like nature have to be excluded from the business profits. These receipts have no nexus with export and hence according to Mr.Aravind, the service income also…

Comr. of It Hyd vs. M/S Neeraj Petro Chemicals Ltd Hyd

ITTA/77/2000HC Telangana23 Jul 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Infosys Technologies Ltd

In the result, appeal is allowed in part

ITA/330/2007HC Karnataka18 Feb 2013

Bench: Granting Such Deduction?

Section 260ASection 80H

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 18th day of February, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2007 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE - 35 BOMBAY. … APPELLANTS [By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.] AND: M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (FORMERLY M/S INFOSYS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.) PLOT NO.44 & 97A, 3RD CROSS ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Glowtronics Ltd

ITA/750/2006HC Karnataka03 Aug 2012

Bench: B.V.PINTO,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 145Section 260Section 260ASection 80H

…80HHC of the Act, computation of profits attributable to the export turnover has not been properly done; that it is not fully in consonance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. K RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR [(2007) 295 ITR 228] which decision has in fact been explained and applied by the division Bench of this court in ITA Nos.793 to 796 of 2006 as per Judgment dated 6.6.2012 and therefore the order of the Tribunal warrants correction to this effect etc. These arguments are elaborated further by learned counsel for the revenue. 7 9. However, Sri. Shankar, learned co…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Silver Crest Clothing Pvt Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/1140/2006HC Karnataka16 Jul 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 260Section 80HSection 88H

…g question of law: 5 “Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Ravindranath (295 ITR 228).” 7. This court in the case of M/s.Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. Range-I, Bangalore in ITA No.s.52/2009 & 182-185/2009, dated 18.08.2009 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravindrnathan Nair’s case has held that the entire amount of receipts towards job work is to be excluded from the n…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Resonace Laboratories

ITA/793/2006HC Karnataka06 Jun 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 80H

…OF INCOME-TAX [ITA Nos 52 OF 2009 AND 182-185 OF 2009, decided on 18-8-2009. 7. Sri Thirumalesh submits that this court, following and applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs K RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR [(2007) 295 ITR 228] had answered a like question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and therefore the present question is also to be answered in the negative, as the appeal is by the revenue, the tribunal having taken a view contrary to the one indicated in the judgment of this court. 10 8. However, Sri Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the as…

M/S Topman Exports vs. Commr of Income Tax, Mumbai

C.A. No.-001699-001699 - 2012Supreme Court08 Feb 2012

…the profits of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such 40 Page 41 JUDGMENT goods bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC), the formula in sub-section (3)(a) of Section 80HHC was stated by this Court to be as follows: Profits derived = Profits of the business x Export Turnover from exports Total Turnover 20. Explanation (baa) under Section 80HHC states that “profits of the business” in the aforesaid…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1223/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2011
Section 10ASection 260A

…ITA 1223/2011, 67/2010 and 458/2010 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1223/2011 Reserved on : 16thNovember, 2011. % Date of Decision : 20th December, 2011. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS LOVLESH JAIN …..Respondent Through Nemo. INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 67/2010 AND 458/2010 Reserved on : 30thNovember, 2011. %…