CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd.

257 ITR 60High Court2002#2365 most cited

What is CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd. authority for?

Interest received on delayed payments from trade debtors for sale consideration is considered income derived from the business of an industrial undertaking. This income is eligible for deduction under relevant provisions like Section 80IB or 80IE.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd. · 257 ITR 60 · Section 80IB · Section 80IE · interest on delayed payment · trade debtors interest · income derived from business · industrial undertaking deduction · sale consideration interest · business profits deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194H

Issues it is cited on

convertible foreign exchangesection 2(28a)section 133a(2a)section 80hsection 80hhsection 80hhcsection 194hinterest under section 201(1a)interest on securitiessection 80ibsection 57section 194a

Judgments citing CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd.

Asst CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Generics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5515/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5515/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, M/S. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, World Trade Centre, Mumbai -400 026 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 9820D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Ms. Bharti M. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :05 .02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti M. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 80Section 80I

…n the issue has been decided as under: “5. The ld. CIT(A) has appreciated this submissions therefore he has held that the machining charges received by the assessee did qualify the deduction u/s 80IB after considering the precedents namely Rane (Madras) Ltd., 238 ITR 377, Taj Fire Works Industries 288 ITR 92 (Mad.) and Northern Aromatics Ltd., 196 CTR 479 (Del.) .We find no fallacy in the decision of ld. CIT(A) for allowing the claim in respect of machining charges received by the assessee. However, the question before us as raised from the side of the assessee is in respect of scrap sales. In this regard the sub…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd

ITA/428/2007HC Karnataka11 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 10ASection 260Section 4

…entitlement could only be said to be the export promotion scheme and not the industrial undertaking.” Following the aforesaid judgments, the Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. THE MADRAS MOTORS LIMITED REPORTED IN (2002) 257 ITR 60 (MAD) has held that the interest which is earned by the assessee from the bank deposits would not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking of the assessee and would only be incidental income thereto and, therefore, such interest has to be - 14 - ignored from the allowable profits under Section 80 HH. Following the afores…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd

ITA - 1265 / 2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2011
For Appellant: Ms. Surushi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr.S.K. Aggarwal
Section 80

…10.11.2003 passed in ITA No.845/Del/1999 pertaining to Assessment Year 1995- 1996 in the case of DCIT Vs.PCL Enterprises. The Tribunal noted that the said decision relied upon the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Motors Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 60 (Mad.) and a decision of another bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamaljeet Vs. ITA No.1110/Del/98 dated 29.07.2003. 5. Before us, the short question is whether the contention of the revenue that in calculating the deduction under section 80 HHC, the turnover of the domestic 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 4 of 14…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd

ITA/1265/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2011
For Appellant: Ms. Surushi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr.S.K. Aggarwal
Section 80

…10.11.2003 passed in ITA No.845/Del/1999 pertaining to Assessment Year 1995- 1996 in the case of DCIT Vs.PCL Enterprises. The Tribunal noted that the said decision relied upon the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Motors Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 60 (Mad.) and a decision of another bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamaljeet Vs. ITA No.1110/Del/98 dated 29.07.2003. 5. Before us, the short question is whether the contention of the revenue that in calculating the deduction under section 80 HHC, the turnover of the domestic 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 4 of 14…

CIT vs. Sadhu Forging Ltd

ITA - 351 / 2011HC Delhi03 Jun 2011
Section 37Section 80Section 80I

…ner of Income Tax v. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd., (2011) 52 DTR (P&H) 385; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vallabh Yarns (P.) Ltd., (2011) 51 DTR (P&H) 236: (iii) CIT v. Impel Forge & Allied Industries Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 27 (P&H), (iv) CIT v. Rane (Mad) Ltd., 238 ITR 377 (Mad), and (v) Dy. CIT v. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri & Another, 258 ITR 785 (Gujarat). - 13. Keeping in view the activities of the assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and parcel of…

CIT vs. Sadhu Forging Ltd

ITA - 167 / 2011HC Delhi03 Jun 2011
Section 37Section 80Section 80I

…of Income Tax v. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd., (2011) 52 DTR (P&H) 385; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vallabh Yarns (P.) Ltd., (2011) 51 DTR (P&H) 236; (iii) CIT v. Impel Forge & Allied Industries Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 27 (P&H), (iv) CIT v. Rane (Mad) Ltd., 238 ITR 377 (Mad), and (v) Dy. CIT v. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri & Another, 258 ITR 785 (Gujarat). 13. Keeping in view the activities of the assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and par…

C.I.T vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 804 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80H

…ect. Accordingly, question No. (c) is answered against the Revenue. Insofar as question No. (d) is concerned, that is clearly covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Motors Ltd./M.M. Forgings Ltd., 257 ITR 60, namely, turnover relating to other business of spare parts as well as sale of motorcycles and television, etc. in that case could not be included in the total turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computation of special deduction under Section 80HHC. The Court observed that Section 80HHC of the Act applies only to the goods which are not on…

C.I.T vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 820 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80H

…Accordingly, question No. (c) is answered against the Revenue. Insofar as question No. (d) is concerned, that is clearly covered by 14. the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Motors Ltd./M.M. Forgings Ltd., 257 ITR 60, namely, turnover relating to other business of spare parts as well as sale of motorcycles and television, etc. in that case could not be included in the total turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computation of special deduction under Section 80HHC. The Court observed that Section 80HHC of the Act applies only to the goods which are not on…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…4. (e)investment of surplus funds may not be business income in some cases, but where money necessarily has to be invested for the sake of carrying on the business, income if earned would be business income. Reliance is place on CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd. 257 ITR 60 (Mad), Vellore Electric Company, CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. 57 ITR 306 (SC). 2007:DHC:9-DB 5.3. A further argument that arises in these cases is that where on account of the conditionalities imposed by the banker, the assessee, for the purposes of obtaining letters of credit, bank guarantees and overdraft facilities for the p…