CIT v. Sterling Foods

237 ITR 579Supreme Court of India1999#247 most cited

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.

311

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sterling Foods · 237 ITR 579 · section 80-IC · section 10B · profit-linked deductions · direct nexus · derived from industrial undertaking · eligible business activity · post-manufacturing event · income eligibility for deductions

Also reported as

104 Taxmann 204

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 80IBSection 14ASection 37(1)Section 80ICSection 92CASection 80HH
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hsection 80hheligible businesssection 80ibdeduction under section 80iasection 80hhcsection 80isection 80icsection 80iadeduction u/s 80iagross total incomewritten down value

Judgments citing CIT v. Sterling Foods

Opera Clothing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 8083/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Opera Clothing Vs Ito-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo4522H

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Opera Clothing vs ITO-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAAFO4522H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Love Kumar-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12/05/2016 12/05/…

M/S. Spinks Impex, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 480/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 39(3) & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.K. Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 03/01/2013 & 20/11/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-Xxviii, New Delhi For Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. The Grounds Raised In The Both The Appeals Are Common & Consolidated Order.

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37Section 80I

…behalf of the assessee that making the FDR was prerequisite for getting VAT registration and therefore it was being essential for business, the interest income is also derived from the eligible business of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods , 237 ITR 579, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the profit to be derived from the eligible business there should be nexus of first- degree between the profit and the eligible business. The relevant para of the judgment is as under: “9. We do not think the source of the import entitlements can be said to be the industrial undertaking of the assessee…

Spinks Impex, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1211/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 39(3) & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.K. Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 03/01/2013 & 20/11/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-Xxviii, New Delhi For Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. The Grounds Raised In The Both The Appeals Are Common & Consolidated Order.

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37Section 80I

…behalf of the assessee that making the FDR was prerequisite for getting VAT registration and therefore it was being essential for business, the interest income is also derived from the eligible business of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods , 237 ITR 579, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the profit to be derived from the eligible business there should be nexus of first- degree between the profit and the eligible business. The relevant para of the judgment is as under: “9. We do not think the source of the import entitlements can be said to be the industrial undertaking of the assessee…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited

ITA/169/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 263Section 80I

…tances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India v. CIT [317 ITR 218] and M/s. Sterling Foods v. CIT [237 ITR 579] that any ancillary profits should be excluded from the meaning of profits derived from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IA and the consideration received from the sale of carbon credits is not derived from the eligible business undertakings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 254(1)Section 80I

…d 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 AO 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’…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…(1) of section 80 IA. Decisions rendered considering the wordings “derived from” and “attributable to” have wrongly been relied upon in the facts of the present case namely:-Cambay Electric Supply Ltd. vs CIT 113 ITR 84 [1978] [SC]; CIT vs Sterling Foods Ltd. 237 ITR 579 [1999] [SC]; and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278 [SC] and other decisions right upto the decision of Liberty Shoes. In all fairness it was stated that although the legal issue may not have been raised before the authorities below but the assessee cannot be barred from raising the issue as assessment has to be made and supported on the b…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3304/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…(1) of section 80 IA. Decisions rendered considering the wordings “derived from” and “attributable to” have wrongly been relied upon in the facts of the present case namely:-Cambay Electric Supply Ltd. vs CIT 113 ITR 84 [1978] [SC]; CIT vs Sterling Foods Ltd. 237 ITR 579 [1999] [SC]; and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278 [SC] and other decisions right upto the decision of Liberty Shoes. In all fairness it was stated that although the legal issue may not have been raised before the authorities below but the assessee cannot be barred from raising the issue as assessment has to be made and supported on the b…

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/CHNY/2011[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 80

…ved from industrial undertaking. Referring to Section 80-IB of the Act, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act in respect of income derived from industrial (113 ITR 84) and CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579), the transport charges, rental charges and service charges are not derived from industrial undertaking. According to the Ld. D.R., deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act can be allowed only in respect of income derived from industrial undertaking and not from income attributable 5 I.T.A. No.877/Mds/11 to business of the assessee. Since th…

Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 8545/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8338/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Adcit-8(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8545/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Vs. Acit-8(2), Mumbai Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 10(1)Section 145ASection 14ASection 2(1)(a)Section 234BSection 80I

…, the amount recovered on the sale of drums would go to reduce the cost of the raw material. The claim of the assessee was not allowed by the Assessing officer by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579(SC) and in the case of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 505(Bom). 8. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nirrna Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, (:2005) 95 ITD 199 (Ahd) (SB) to support the contention that the sale of scrap would reduce the cost of raw ma…

Addl Cirt G 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ny HO expenses in respect of the above units. He directed the assessee to explain the reason for not considering the HO expenses in working the profits of the above units. In its reply,dated 18.11.2008,the assessee relied upon the judgments of Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (262 ITR 278) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.It was argued that the HO expenses did not have any direct and immediate nexus to the eligible undertaking,that same should be considered for the purpose of determining the amount of exemption u/s 80IA. The AO, after considering the submission of the assessee,held th…

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

…e had received Rs.2,51,48,410/- as export incentives, i.e., DEPB and claimed deduction 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…

Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1739/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1997-98 M/S Zodiac Clothing Dcit 7(3) Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan. बनाम/ 10/76 Off Haines Rd. Worli, M. K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai -400018 Mumbai (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacz0151A

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 80I

…ourt. 4 Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. (ii) It has been further submitted that the ‘Reasons’ are based upon change of the opinion of the AO. The AO has relied upon, in the ‘Reasons’ recorded, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods Ltd. 237 ITR 579 which was always available with the AO at the time of framing of the original assessment order u/s 143(3), and therefore, there was no change in facts and no fresh material had come into the possession of the AO, and therefore, ‘Reasons’ have been recorded contrary to the provisions of law, as requisite conditions for regarding ‘Reasons’ were not…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…above units. He directed the assessee to explain the reason for not considering the HO expenses in working the profits of the above units. In its 3703/11 -+1-Aditya Birla Nuvo reply,dated 18.11.2008,the assessee relied upon the judgments of Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (262 ITR 278) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.It was argued that the HO expenses did not have any direct and immediate nexus to the eligible undertaking,that same should be considered for the purpose of determining the amount of exemption u/s 80IA. The AO, after considering the submission of the assessee,held th…

Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3634/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…above units. He directed the assessee to explain the reason for not considering the HO expenses in working the profits of the above units. In its 3703/11 -+1-Aditya Birla Nuvo reply,dated 18.11.2008,the assessee relied upon the judgments of Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (262 ITR 278) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.It was argued that the HO expenses did not have any direct and immediate nexus to the eligible undertaking,that same should be considered for the purpose of determining the amount of exemption u/s 80IA. The AO, after considering the submission of the assessee,held th…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 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 AO 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’…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 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 AO 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’…

Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Tax Range 15

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but with no order as to costs

ITA/459/2015HC Delhi19 Nov 2015
Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 260A

…missioner of Income Tax (2003) 262 ITR 278 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 ITR 218, which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex P Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 403(Mad.) which interpreted Section 10A of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Motorola India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after noticing the above decisions, held that “it is clear that, what is exempted is no…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Kryfs Power Components Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 9106/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ In the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S.Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं /ITA No.9106/Mum/2010, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year 2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-9(2) M/s. Kryfs Power Components Ltd. 3rd Floor, Aza House, 24 Aayakar Bhavan Room No.218 2nd floor, M.K. Road Turner Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumb…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1320/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A), Faridabad, Dated 27.12.2011 & 20.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1321/Del/2012:

For Appellant: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, AR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…ine Exports (Supra) is received from the export house through which export is made. iii) The reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) M/s Liberty India vs CIT SLP (C) No. 5827/07(SC) and (2) CIT vs Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). In these cases, the issues related to various incentives received by Exports on account of different Government Schemes, for example, Import Entitlements, Duty Drawback and DEPB etc, have been duly dressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which are squarely applicable to the instant case. iv) The receipt of 'Export Incentive' from the Government of…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Qh Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A), Faridabad, Dated 27.12.2011 & 20.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1321/Del/2012:

For Appellant: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, AR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…ine Exports (Supra) is received from the export house through which export is made. iii) The reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) M/s Liberty India vs CIT SLP (C) No. 5827/07(SC) and (2) CIT vs Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). In these cases, the issues related to various incentives received by Exports on account of different Government Schemes, for example, Import Entitlements, Duty Drawback and DEPB etc, have been duly dressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which are squarely applicable to the instant case. iv) The receipt of 'Export Incentive' from the Government of…