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)

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

…s are not derived from the business of exports of the Page No. 61 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited Assessee. In doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods Ltd (1999) 237 ITR 579. Being aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) relying on the order of the CIT(A) passed in the assessee’s own case for AY 2000- 01, directed the Assessing Officer to reduce 90% of the sales tax set off under clause (baa) of Explanation to section 80HHC. Thus, CIT(A) gave relief only to the extent of 10% by direc…

M/S. Allstate India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R

Section 10ASection 139

…and the nature of income cannot be changed. He also submitted that the judgement relied by the AO in the case of Liberty India Ltd. in which the word “derived from” has been interpreted and he also submitted that in the case of Sterling Foods Ltd. reported in 237 ITR 579, the Hon’ble Apex court has held that interest would not have direct nexus with the industrial unit and would also be incidental and therefore, such interest has to be ignored from the allowable profits and is not eligible for exemption. In the case of assessee, the interest received has to be treated as income from other sources. The ld. D.R. fu…

Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, Daman & Diu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 80GSection 80I

…as Wazir P. Ltd (1 79 ITR 811 [Allahabad]. The following judicial references support the stand taken by the department. 1. CIT vs. Eastern Sea Foods Exports P. Ltd - 215 ITR 26 2. Cambay Electric Supply Co. vs. CIT- 113 ITR 84 3. CIT vs. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 4. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. - 262 ITR 278 4.4 In view of these facts, other income of Rs.99,46,189/- pertaining to pertaining to Haridwar Unit-2 are being excluded from the profits eligible for deduction U/S.80IC of the Income-Tax Act,1961.” 18. Therefore, we note that Assessing Officer has discussed the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order al…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

For Appellant: ShriJ.G. Pendse, ARFor Respondent: ShriM.M. Chate, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92(2)Section 92B

…in the case of M/s Fenner India Ltd. (241 ITR 803) without appreciating the facts that the same has been M/s. Finolex Cables Ltd. rendered without taking into consideration various decision of Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue like CIT vs Sterling Food (199) 237 ITR 579 when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business? 2(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the allowances made u/s 14A of the Act by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that, no satisfaction has been recorded by the assessing…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT (LTU-1) v. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 PAN: AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5030/MUM/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited v. ACIT (LTU-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400…

M/S. Saraf Exports vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur - III

C.A. No.-004822-004822 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(2)Section 75Section 80

…nt, 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) 4 SCC 98 : (1999) 237 ITR 579] . 31. 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. [(1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom)]) 32. Continuing our analysis of Sections 80-IA/80-IB it may be mentioned that…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacn 46664 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Pawan Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Pawan ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 80I

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद"यएवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AAACN 46664 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee by : Sri Pawan Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Sri MN M…

ACIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Lederle Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4070/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2000-01) Acit-7(3) बिधम/ M/S. Wyeth Ltd. Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400098. Cross Objection No. 376/Mum/2005 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Wyeth Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-7(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400098. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rajnandani Shukla Revenue By: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai Dated 22.03.2005 For The Ay. 2000-01. 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue & Only Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Co Are Dealt Together. The Ground Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.21,54,713/- (20% Of The Expenditure Of Rs.1,07,73,564/-).

For Appellant: Ms. Rajnandani ShuklaFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal (Sr. AR)

…ess’ eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act on the premise that these receipts are not derived from the business of exports of the assessee. In doing so, the AO relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC). 16. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has followed the decision of his predecessors for earlier years and directed the AO to grant benefit to the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us. 9 A.Y. 2000-01 M/s. Wyeth Lederle Ltd. 17. We note that this issue is no longer res-integra. Similar issue came up f…

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vlcc Personal Care Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3126/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84, where the Court held that the expression “derived from” has to be given a restricted meaning as opposed to the phrase “attributable to” which is wider and broader in scope. 2. In CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579, Hon’ble Apex Court had clearly enunciated that miscellaneous incomes could not be construed to constitute profit and gains derived from the industrial undertaking. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Pandian Chemicals (2003) 262 ITR 278 3. Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that interest earned on fixed deposits is not eligible for deductio…

M/S Mirza Sons Mirza, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

ITA 7/ASR/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 56Section 80H

…The AO however rejected the contention of the appellant and held that the said interest income cannot be said to have been derived from export business of the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT VS Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and CIT Vs Pandian Chemicals Ltd 262 ITR 278 (SC) where it was held that only the profit of the assessee having direct nexus with the industrial undertaking of the assessee are eligible for deduction. The AO further relied upon the 3 Mirza Sons Mirza Bagh Nageen v. Asstt. CIT decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nartji Topa…

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

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

…a rights for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 as covered by Section 28(iiia) to (iiic) and had computed the deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 and held that under the proviso to Section 80HHC(3), the three categories mentioned in Section 28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) have to be included. He held that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed by reducing business profit by 90% from the receipts on sale of quota rights. He also observed that the Assessing Officer had not verified fac…

M/S. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, R S V S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 80I

…t of deduction u/s. 80IA to the assessee on the ground that the rental income is not ‘derived from’ the business of the assessee. The ld. DR in this regard relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:- Page 5 of 16 (i) CIT v. Sterling Foods, [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC) (ii) Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) (iii) Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 183 Taxman 349 (SC) 9. The ld. DR drew our attention to the relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above listed cases to submit that the income earned should not be incidental to the business, but shoul…