What is CIT v. Sterling Foods authority for?

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sterling Foods?

311 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sterling Foods come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 80IB, Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 80IC.

CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579)

Value Labs LLP, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, grounds pertaining to ‘other income’ are considered allowed and grounds pertaining to interest income are considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 56

…2/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: of Rs. 4,62,35,101/- and other income of Rs. 41,39,680/-. Considering that these amounts are not derived from the export of software and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods [237 ITR 579] (SC) and CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd., [262 ITR 278], AO excluded the above amounts from the computation u/s. 10A and restricted the deduction accordingly. 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that interest income and other income have direct nexus with the activity of business and that these receipts form part of business of assessee.…

Indira Industries, Ranipet vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1262/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Indira Industries, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Ranipet 632 403, Tamil Nadu. Circle 1, Vellore. [Pan: Aaafi2440N] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…me of the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 has held that the words "derived from" are narrower in scope than the words "attributable to". In the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579, the Supreme Court observed that: "the word 'derive' is usually followed by the word 'from' and it means: 'get, to trace from a source; arise from, originate in, show the origin or formation of'". It was pointed out that unless the source of the income is from an industrial undertaking, such income cannot be regarded as "derived from" industrial…

M/S Atria Power Corproation Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

…xed deposits, which were purchased on account of business exigencies, therefore the same may be treated as business income. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 262 ITR 278 in which it was held that income earned on FDRs cannot be held to be income derived from industrial undertaking. 6. In rebuttal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that FDRs were purchased on account of business exigencies. The judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sterling…

Saraf Export, Churu vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 32/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80I

…Act, 1962. Hence, according to the Department, in the present cases, the first degree source is the incentive scheme/provisions of the Customs Act. In this connection, the Department places heavy reliance on the judgment of this court in Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579. Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business of an industrial undertaking, we need to trace the source of the profits to manufacture. (see CIT v Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. reported in [1986] 157 ITR 762." The Hon'ble Court analysed Duty Exemption Remission Scheme and held DEPB as an incentive. It hel…

Quadron Business Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4857/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Quadron Business Part Ltd. Dy. Cit, C.C.36, Plot No.28, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hinjewadi, Phase-Ii, Pune, "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca 9058 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Sharma/ Shri Dhruv Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Sharma/For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

Section 80Section 80I

…interpreted, explained and distinguished from the expression attributable to: • Liberty India v. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) • Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC) • Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 113 ITR 84 (SC) • CIT v. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC) • Dy. CIT v. Parekh PIast India (P) Ltd. 137 ITD 208 (Mum) • JJC. Trust v. CIT 23 ITR 143 (Bom) 11. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the amount receipt in this account is not derived from business and, accordingly, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80-IAB was reduced by the amount of Rs.15,16,14,301/-. 12. Against t…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 80HSection 80I

…that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre-existing contract. 9.6 The AD has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278) (SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be said to be forming a part of the profits of business of the industrial undertaking. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon'…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 8, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 80HSection 80I

…that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre-existing contract. 9.6 The AD has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278) (SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be said to be forming a part of the profits of business of the industrial undertaking. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd (300 ITR 6), in case of CIT V. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (2008-TIOL-664-HC-Del-IT) are relevant, which had considered the Hon'…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xlnc Fashions, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3520/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 3520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Xlnc Fashions, Ward-22(2), A-14, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafx0026B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 80I

…year under consideration, I have taken a contrary view to that of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2009-10, which was based on the following judgments : (a) CIT Vs. Menon Impex Pvt. Ltd. 259 ITR 403 (Mad) (b) CIT Vs. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 0218 (SC) (d) ITO Vs. Banyan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 310 ITR (AT) 384 (Ahd)(TM) (e) India Comnet International Vs. ITO 304 ITR 322 (Mad) However, in the instant case, I am bound by the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi, which is the jurisdictional bench of Hon'ble ITAT, in the appellant's own…

Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1056/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT

Section 10BSection 10B(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…duction under Section 10B of the Act. In this case, the management fee was not derived from the business of export. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 and in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278, found that the management fee was not derived from the export of business, therefore, he rejected the claim of the assessee and the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant mat…

Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1055/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT

Section 10BSection 10B(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…duction under Section 10B of the Act. In this case, the management fee was not derived from the business of export. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 and in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278, found that the management fee was not derived from the export of business, therefore, he rejected the claim of the assessee and the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant mat…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2733/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2732 & 2733/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 M/s.REPCO Home Finance Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Alexandar Square, Income Tax, No.2(Old No.34/35), Company range-5, Sardar Patel road, Gunidy, Chennai -600 034. Chennai 600 032. [PAN AACCR 0209 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2732/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2732 & 2733/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 M/s.REPCO Home Finance Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Alexandar Square, Income Tax, No.2(Old No.34/35), Company range-5, Sardar Patel road, Gunidy, Chennai -600 034. Chennai 600 032. [PAN AACCR 0209 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA NOs.5245 & 5419/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 DCIT-2(1), M/s GTL Ltd. R. No.575, 5th Floor, बनाम/ Global Vision Electronic M.K. Road, Sadan-II, MID TTC Vs. Mumbai-400020 Industrial Area, Mahape, Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACG3742L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram & Miss N…

M/S. Liberty Shoes Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2273/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., Acit, Karnal Circle, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, Vs Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Aaacl3146K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 80Section 80I

…Delhi High Court in the case of Dharam Pal Prem Chand (supra) observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and CIT vs Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and held in unequivocal terms that the amount received by the assessee towards the refund of excise duty cannot form part of the profits and gains derived from the undertaking. 8. In so far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The question is whether a refund of excise duty to the tune of Rs.35,80,000/- forms a part of the profit…

M/S. Shubham Feed Mills, Uttrakhand vs. ITO- I, Uttrakhand

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 378/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaishubham Feed Mills Ito A Beria Road, Bazpur Kashipur Uttrakhand. Vs. Uttrakhand Gir/Pan: Abgfs8750G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Choudhary, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 234Section 80I

…n 80IC. He accordingly disallowed deduction under 80IC on Rs.3,09,149/-. Aggrieved by addition made assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who upheld addition by relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods reported in 237 ITR 53 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd., reported in 262 ITR 278. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us now. Ground No. 1 and 2 4. Ld. AR submitted that assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity of cattle foods. He submitted that raw materials for manufacture of cattle food comes in packed condition, which is unpacked and bag…