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

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…ble as revenue expenditure. 26.3. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and proceeded to make the addition. While making addition, he relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and Pandyan Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT (262 ITR 278) (SC) stating that the said amount is not the income derived from industrial undertaking and therefore, was to be reduced from the profit for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. 26.4. Aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition m…

P vs. Multiplex (India) Ltd., Meerutvs.ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7697/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(vi)Section 80I

…ncome earned from sale of part of the multiplex complex. In support of the claim of deduction on income earned from sale of part of the multiplex complex, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 to emphasise that the expression ‘attributable to’ was a wider in import 5 than the expression ‘derived from’. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the said decision are as under: - “For that purpose, it relied upon the decision of this Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84. It was t…

Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5991/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…tful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC is denied to the extent of Rs.7,10,45,307/- are all those incomes which arise out of the main acti…

Bhagwati Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5077/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…tful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC is denied to the extent of Rs.7,10,45,307/- are all those incomes which arise out of the main acti…

Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…mpared to expression ‘attributable to’ [Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co Ltd Vs. CIT: 113 ITR 84]. For application of words ‘derived from’ there must exist a direct nexus between the profits and the eligible business [Sterling Foods Vs State of Karnataka: 237 ITR 579]. Therefore, in our view only profits having direct nexus with eligible business of developing and construction of a housing project would be eligible for deduction in terms of Section 80IB(1) read with Section 80IB(10) of the Act. 12. The case of the Appellant is that charges collected by the Appellant from the purchasers of the flat have direc…

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

…y income. He further submitted that while disallowing the deduction claimed under section 10B, reliance placed by the Ld. AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 to the facts of the assessee’s case and his findings on interpretation of the term “derived from” appearing in section 80HH and 80IB of the Act are incorrect. 5.3 Sundries written back represent sundry items which are no longer liable to be paid. These represent expenses claimed in the earlier years which had bearing on the reduction on deductio…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1) (C) only because the deduction claimed has not been allowed viz: a. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010)230 CTR 320 (SC) b. M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1) (C) only because the deduction claimed has not been allowed viz: a. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010)230 CTR 320 (SC) b. M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1) (C) only because the deduction claimed has not been allowed viz: a. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010)230 CTR 320 (SC) b. M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition…

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1) (C) only because the deduction claimed has not been allowed viz: a. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010)230 CTR 320 (SC) b. M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition…

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC). However, on a reading of the judgment we find that that also deals with section 80HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle difference from Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). In fact, in Pandian Chemicals [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) and the decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that the expression 'derived from an industrial undertaking' is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking." 5. Havi…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC). However, on a reading of the judgment we find that that also deals with section 80HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle difference from Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). In fact, in Pandian Chemicals [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) and the decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that the expression 'derived from an industrial undertaking' is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking." 5. Havi…

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC). However, on a reading of the judgment we find that that also deals with section 80HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle difference from Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). In fact, in Pandian Chemicals [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) and the decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that the expression 'derived from an industrial undertaking' is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking." 5. Havi…