CIT v. Sterling Foods

246 ITR 439High Court#8357 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sterling Foods

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…y the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for AY 1991 92 as per ITA No. 5959/8/94 dated 16.4.2002 In this Tribunal order, reliance has been placed on the Judgement of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. KantilalChhotalal reported in 246 ITR 439 and it was held that the scrap sales cannot be included in the total turnover and regarding sales tax, the Tribunal has followed the Judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. & Ors., 245 ITR 769 and it was held that sales tax collected by the assessee cannot form part of the tota…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Dept
Section 80Section 80H

…e and considering the fact that though the Hon'ble court have taken into account the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. K. ITA Nos.562 & 755/Bang/2007 Page 6 of 42 Doshi & Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Kantilal Chotelal 246 ITR 439 (Born) but not over ruled them, it cannot be accepted that the receipts that are only incidental to the main business activity of the appellant company though might be arising out of said activity are still required to be taken as part of the business profits for the computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. In regard to the said r…

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 562/BANG/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Dept
Section 80Section 80H

…e and considering the fact that though the Hon'ble court have taken into account the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. K. ITA Nos.562 & 755/Bang/2007 Page 6 of 42 Doshi & Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Kantilal Chotelal 246 ITR 439 (Born) but not over ruled them, it cannot be accepted that the receipts that are only incidental to the main business activity of the appellant company though might be arising out of said activity are still required to be taken as part of the business profits for the computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. In regard to the said r…

DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6963/MUM/2014[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 254

…that the aforesaid four receipts do not form part of total turnover. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court to support its contention in the case of Kantilal Chhotalal vs. DCIT reported in 246 ITR 439 (Bom) wherein it was held as under:- “The Legislature have clarified that receipts like interest, commission, etc., have no nexus with the export activity and by including such receipts in the business profits the existing formula became unworkable” 4.4. In our considered opinion, this decision is squarely applicable to the assessee for the A.Y…

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (INV) CIRLCE- 2 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2079/MUM/2003[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80H

…t and could not be considered as part of the sales, the assessee’s claim could not be accepted. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Sudharshan Chemicals India Ltd. (245 ITR 769) and CIT V/s Kantillal Chottalal (246 ITR 439) to arrive such a conclusion. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal by way of Ground Nos. 3 & 4. Zensar Technologies Ltd. AYs : 1998-99 to 2000-01 9.2 We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid items represented miscellaneous write-backs & recoveries which arose in the course of carrying on business activities. The same could not…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ovides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not f…

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4122/DEL/2015[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 1997-98] M/S Mmtc Limited Vs. The D.C.I.T Core -1, Scope Complex Circle 16(2) 7, Institutional Area New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 1433 E [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80H

…Income following the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement (305 ITR 276). 4. That on facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned C1T(A) erred in reaffirming the reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Kanti Lal Chhote Lal (246 ITR 439) relied upon by his predecessor, which deals with the issue of reassortment charges forming part of business profits/turnover and not with regard to the ground of the appellant pertaining to considering net interest expenditure (if any) and prior period expenditure forming part of indirect cost for computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act.” 3. B…

THE ACIT CIR 18(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LOOMS INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 301/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.301/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) A.C.I.T. Circle 18(2) M/S. Looms India बनाम/ Room No.115, 1St Floor, 126, Mathuradas Mill Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai - 400012 Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfl0259D

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(2)Section 36Section 44ASection 80H

…ble for deduction u/s.80HHC ignoring that interest income does not form part of sale proceedings relating to export for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC; (vii) Ignoring the jurisdictional High Court decisions in A.K.Doshi in 249 ITR 849 Kantila Chotalal in 246 ITR 439, Ravi Exports in 246 ITR 443 and Pravin M. Mehta in 246 ITR 445 holding that interest on FDR in income from other sources and not export income eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC; (viii) Directing to allow deduction u/s.80HHC without appreciating that the assessee has no positive income from A.Y.2001-02 export of 90% of incentives and other incom…

CIT v. Sterling Foods (246 ITR 439) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax