CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works

290 ITR 667Supreme Court of India2007#602 most cited

What is CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works authority for?

Excise duty and sales tax must be excluded from 'total turnover' when calculating deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80HHC or 80IA, to ensure that the export turnover and total turnover are on a comparable basis.

163

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works · 290 ITR 667 · total turnover · excise duty · sales tax · Section 80HHC · Section 80IA · export deduction · Chapter VI-A · deduction computation

Sections most often in play

Section 80HHCSection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 28(iiid)Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80IBSection 115JB

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 80hhcsection 115jasection 80hhinterest on refundsection 80hsection 28(iv)section 145asection 80ibsection 80iadeduction under section 80iasection 244a

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

ITA/266/2009HC Punjab & Haryana05 Feb 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204 ITA-266-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant Vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for Income Tax Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMERS, PATIALA

ITA/645/2008HC Punjab & Haryana27 Jan 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 80M

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 1. ITA-645-2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH ...Appellant Versus M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMERS, PATIALA ...Respondent 2. ITA-263-2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH ...Appellant Versus M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. (NOW M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi…

RADIANT TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.444/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Radiant Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle Patiala बनाम/ Village Chounth, Patiala Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Samana-147101 Patiala 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-1175-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13-02-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 154 Of The Act On 28-11-2023. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Correct Rates Of Taxes.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 145ASection 154

…f goods manufactured from out of duty suffered goods, and the transaction thus answer the definition of 'export' as given under the Duty Drawback Rules, the State is not justified in taxing this receipt as part of the turnover" • CIT vs Lakshmi Machine Works, 290 ITR 667 (SC) (copy appended at page 77-89 and 18-35 ofAJC) "18. In the case of combined business of an assessee having export business and domestic business the Legislature intended to have a formula to ascertain export profits by apportioning the total business profits on the basis of turnovers. Apportionment of profits on the basis of turnover was acce…

UNIVERSAL MEDICAP LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154

…important to note that the assessee is collecting the excise duty from the customers in the capacity of an agent only and does not give any rise to the Income of the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works [2007] 160 Taxman 404/290 ITR 667 had directed to exclude the excise duty from the amount of turnover. (copy enclosed as Page no 13 to 27) f) Besides the above, the excise duty is leviable on manufacturing of the goods and the rate of the same varies based on different goods being manufactured. There can be a situation where a company manufactures goods subject to excise duty at…

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…e `total turnover' should be considered not of excise duty and\nsales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention,\nthe Id. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals\nIndustries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom).\n49. On the other hand, the Id. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO.\n50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO\nwhile passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of\nRs.37.83 crore as a part of to…

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…the ‘total turnover’ should be considered not of excise duty and sales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom). 49. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. 50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO while passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of Rs. 37.83 crore as a part of to…

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…the ‘total turnover’ should be considered not of excise duty and sales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom). 49. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. 50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO while passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of Rs. 37.83 crore as a part of to…

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…the ‘total turnover’ should be considered not of excise duty and sales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom). 49. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. 50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO while passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of Rs. 37.83 crore as a part of to…

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…the ‘total turnover’ should be considered not of excise duty and sales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom). 49. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. 50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO while passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of Rs. 37.83 crore as a part of to…

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…the ‘total turnover’ should be considered not of excise duty and sales tax so that the two terms became comparable. To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 641 (SC) and Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 769 (Bom). 49. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. 50. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties. We find that AO while passing the assessment order included excise duty and sales tax amount of Rs. 37.83 crore as a part of to…

SATYAM SMELTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2493/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 145ASection 153ASection 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2493/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Satyam Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata (PAN: AAICS 3549 K) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 08.05.2025 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 22 .05.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA "नधा"रती क" ओर से Shri Deepak…

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 4823/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

…wherein it has been held as under: - ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd “7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue.” 44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the issue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement against the submission of…

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 4680/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

…wherein it has been held as under: - ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd “7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue.” 44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the issue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement against the submission of…

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CC-35,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2564/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

…wherein it has been held as under: - ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd “7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue.” 44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the issue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement against the submission of…

THE ACIT CC-35 vs. M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

…wherein it has been held as under: - ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd “7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue.” 44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the issue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement against the submission of…

ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 7397/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

…wherein it has been held as under: - ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd “7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue.” 44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the issue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement against the submission of…

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 7124/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80HSection 80I

…99-2000 bearing ITA No.1621/Mum/2004, wherein it has\nbeen held as under: -\n\n“7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue\nstands concluded by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs\nLaxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld.\nAccordingly, the addition made by the Ld.AO in this regard is deleted. The\nRevenue's appeal is dismissed on this issue.”\n\n44. The Ld.DR argued and submitted written submission vide para 1.1.5, the\nissue is explained. But was unable to bring on record any contrary judgement\nagainst the submissi…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)

…the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 ITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 ITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Coimbatore Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works [2007] 290 ITR 667 (SC). In the aforesaid judgments its has been held that for purposes of computing allowable deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, sales tax and excise duty cannot form part of 'Total Turnover'. Following the aforesaid judgments, the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the Assessee in the following appeals: (a) AY 2003-04 (ITANo.1496&…

THE ACIT CEN CIR 35 vs. M/S. MARIKO IND. LTD,

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1621/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 37Section 80HSection 80I

…Ltd. (supra) was not accepted by the Department and hence the appeal was filed. 7.2) After perusing the material on record, the Bench decides that this issue stands concluded by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 and hence the order of the Ld. 5 M/s. Marico Industries Ltd. CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld. AO in this regard is deleted. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this issue. 8. Ground No. 5 : Reallocation of expenditure towards packing material for the purposes of computation of profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80I…

M/S. KLUBER LUBRICATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 765/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh, Shri Devashish Jain & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 244A

…note that the assessee is collecting the excise duty from the customers in the capacity of an agent only and does not give any rise to the income to the assessee. The judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works reported in 290 ITR 667 has directed to exclude the excise duty from the amount of turnover. However, the judgment was in the context of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 12.9 Besides the above, we are also conscious about the fact that the excise duty is leviable on manufacturing of the goods and the rate of the same varies based on different goods being manuf…

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (290 ITR 667) — Cited in 163 Judgments | BharatTax