CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.

257 ITR 41High Court#20152 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.

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

…ational Research Park Laboratories vs. ACIT : 212 ITR (AT) 1, 50, ITD 37 2. P.R.Prabhakar vs. CIT : 284 ITR 584 3. Pearl Polymers Limited : 80 ITD 1 (SB) (Del.) 4. Harisons Malayalam Limited V. DCIT : 60 ITD 306 (Coch.) 5. CIT vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd. : 257 ITR 41 (Ker) 6. Rajeev Enterprises V. AO : 261 ITR (AT) 34 7.Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT : 266 ITR 418 (Bom.) 8. CIT vs. Bangalore Clothing Co. : 260 ITR 371 9. CIT vs. kar Mobiles Ltd. : 333 ITR 478 (Ker) 10. CIT vs. Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Ltd. 335 ITR 472 (Bom) 11. DCIT vs. B.A. Aswathaiah & Bros. : 72 TTJ 714 (Bang.) 12. Kadra Mills (CBE)…

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

…e assessee’s contention and placed reliance on the Tribunal’s ITA 166/2004 Page 6 of 23 decision in the case of International Park Research Laboratory v. CIT, 50 ITD 37 and the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd., 257 ITR 41, stating that “total turnover” unambiguously referred to the total turnover of the entire business and not just the turnover of exports. In relation to the computation of “indirect costs”, the ITAT found that the computation by the AO was in accordance with the definition of “indirect costs” provided in Explanation (e) to Section 80HHC(3). The…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Jewellry P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 7348/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Vs. Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 263Section 80H

…i, dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28/03/2008, holding that “the computation of deduction u/s.80HHC by the AO is as per law especially in view of the decision of the Hon’’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd. 257 ITR 41 and the decision of the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of International Research Park and Labs Ltd., Vs. ACIT 50 ITD 3(Del. S.B.). The stand of the AO is accordingly upheld.” 5. Further, aggrieved by the order dated 28/03/2008 of the CIT(A)-VIII, Mumbai, the assessee went in appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai. In its order dated 2…

Flender Limited (Since Merged With Siemens Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1504/KOL/2011[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 1999-2000

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhasis Dey, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITD, ld.DR
Section 147Section 80H

…) dated 20.2.2014 wherein the questions raised before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court were as follows:- “4. The learned tribunal, agreeing with the views expressed by the CIT(A) and relying on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd [2002[257 ITR 41/[2003] 131 Taxman 577 (Ker.), upheld the views of the CIT(A) and added that in arriving at the admissible deduction under Section 80HHE the Assessing Officer has also to take into account the negative profit arising out of the business of gear box. The questions in the circumstance, which arise for determination, are as follows: (a) Whether there…