How many judgments cite CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd.?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (274 ITR 324), spanning 2008 to 2023.

CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd.

274 ITR 324High Court2005#10448 most cited

What is CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. authority for?

Duty drawback amounts are not income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction under sections like 80-I or 80-IB. These refunds are considered a reduction in the cost of goods sold or a reimbursement of duties paid, not a profit generated by the undertaking itself.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. · 274 ITR 324 · duty drawback · 80-I · 80-IB · income derived from industrial undertaking · export promotion · tax deduction

Judgments citing CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd.

Urmila Tank, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal On 22.04.2023 Within The Time Limit. The Due Date Of Filing

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Chatter, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 1Section 44A

…ross receipt”. Therefore, it should be treated as gross receipt and thus cannot be added as “other income” in computing the total income of the assessee. As far as the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 324 (Delhi) relied upon by the revenue authorities is concerned, the said case deals with section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. However, the facts of the present case are with regard to section 44AD of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the parimateria contained in the said judgment so referred by the revenue authorities is altogether different from the fact…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Barak Valley Cements Ltd

ITAT/145/2018HC Calcutta06 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 260ASection 80I

…s and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Appellate Tribunal, has erred in allowing deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on VAT remission while is contrary to law laid down in the case of Ritesh Industrial Ltd. reported in (2005) 274 ITR 324 and also in the case of CIT Versus H.M. Steels Ltd. reported in [2015] 62 Taxmann.com 252 (Punjab & Haryana)? iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Appellate Tribunal, has erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on VAT remission by relying the decision in the case of Megha…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -2, Kolkata vs. Cement International Ltd

The appeal is dismissed on the ground of low

ITAT/147/2018HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Section 260ASection 80I

…facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on VAT remission which is contrary to law laid down in the case of Ritesh Industrial Ltd. reported in (2005) 274 ITR 324 and also in the case of CIT Versus H. M. Steels Ltd. reported in [2015] 62 Taxmann.com 252 (Punjab & Haryana) ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before us the copy of the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Head…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…acts of the case, as has been held in the case laws of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co Ltd v. CIT 113 ITR 84 (SC), CIT v. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC), CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd 262 ITR 278 19 M/s. Lupin Limited (SC), CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd 274 ITR 324 (Del), CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd 281 ITR 425 (Mad), Liberty India v. CIT 293 ITR 520 (P&H) and Mentha & Allied Products Pvt Ltd 302 1TR 144 (All) that the income that is 'derived‟ from an industrial undertaking is only deductible u/s 80IB is clearly applicable in this case. Further reliance is placed on the ratio of decision of the apex court…

M/S.. Upkar International (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…from the business of industrial undertaking. Thus in order to qualify for deduction u/s 80-lB the income should qualify the above test of being born out of immediate source of manufacture. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ritesh Industries Ltd 274 ITR 324 held that duty draw back cannot be regarded as the profit or gain "derived" from Industrial Undertaking. It may constitute profit or gain of the business by virtue of section 28 but it cannot be constructed as profit or gains derived from Industrial Undertaking, since its 'immediate and oroximate source is not the industrial undertaking but th…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Ulka Sea Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5259/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Kishore I. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss (CIT-DR) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…is reproduced hereinbelow. “4.3 I have considered the A.O.'s order as well as the appellant's submission. Having considered both, I find that with regard to the duty drawback the Delhi High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 324 (Del), wherein their Lordships applying the decision of apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (supra) and referring to CIT vs. Jameel Leathers & Uppers (2000) 246 ITR 97 (Mad), CIT vs. Viswanathan & Co. (2003) 181 CTR (Mad) 335 has held as under: "There must be, for the application of the words 'derived from', a direct nexus between t…

Ulka Seafoods P.Ltd, Maharashtra vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4903/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Kishore I. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss (CIT-DR) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Ktm India vs. ACIT Circle

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

ITA 141/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Richa Rastogi, Sr. DR

Section 29Section 80HSection 80I

…ion u/s. 80IB on this amount of DEPB also. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling foods, 237 ITR 579 (SC) and of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritesh Industries, 274 ITR 324 (Delhi), holding that the duty draw back and DEPB are not the income derived from the business eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. The ld. CIT(A) after following the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the cases of M/s. Nahar Exports Ltd. vs. CIT, 204 CTR 464 (P&H), M/s. Liberty India vs. CIT, Karnal, 207 CTR 243 a…

M/S Liberty India vs. Commr.of Income Tax, Karnal

C.A. No.-005891-005891 - 2009Supreme Court31 Aug 2009

Section 260ASection 80

…deduction under Section 80-IB. Against the decision of CIT(A) allowing deduction on duty drawback, the revenue went in appeal to the Tribunal which following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. reported in 274 ITR 324, held that the amount received by the assessee on account of duty drawback was not an income derived from the business of the industrial undertaking so as to entitle the assessee to deduction under Section 80-IB. 6. The decision of the Tribunal was assailed by the assessee(s) under Section 260A of the 1961 Act before the High Court. Following…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eltek Sgs P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 643 / 2007HC Delhi19 Feb 2008

Section 260Section 80

…cted in the profit and loss account of the assessee and, therefore, the Revenue‟s argument cannot be accepted” 17. Learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ritesh Industries Ltd., [2005] 274 ITR 324. The question of law that was framed for consideration by this Court was as follows - “Whether the amount of „duty drawback‟ can be regarded as income derived from an industrial undertaking so as to entitle the assessee to a deduction under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 18. While answering the question in favour of the Reve…