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

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2161/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…g not the same throughout and the word 'derived' having come in for interpretation and noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 and following its earlier view taken in CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 and having held that the profit should be directly' attributable to the export activity and in the instant case it having been attributed directly to the fluctuation in the exchange rate, the assessee could not have got the benefit and the Tribunal is in error in answering this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assesse…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2160/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…g not the same throughout and the word 'derived' having come in for interpretation and noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 and following its earlier view taken in CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 and having held that the profit should be directly' attributable to the export activity and in the instant case it having been attributed directly to the fluctuation in the exchange rate, the assessee could not have got the benefit and the Tribunal is in error in answering this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assesse…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…9 and Liberty India (Supra) have not been considered. The facts in the case of Arul Mariamal Textiles (Madras), relied upon by the Ld. AR are different from the facts of the instant case and hence, distinguishable. In the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “there must be for the application of the words ‘derived from’, a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking.” That decision was in reference of deduction claimed under Section 80HH of the Act. The issue was raised whether the said ratio is applicable in the case of edu…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…9 and Liberty India (Supra) have not been considered. The facts in the case of Arul Mariamal Textiles (Madras), relied upon by the Ld. AR are different from the facts of the instant case and hence, distinguishable. In the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “there must be for the application of the words ‘derived from’, a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking.” That decision was in reference of deduction claimed under Section 80HH of the Act. The issue was raised whether the said ratio is applicable in the case of edu…

Unitedhealth Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

ITA 6665/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 254Section 92C

…als Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra), after noticing the above decisions, held that "it is clear that, what is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4793/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…al undertaking could not be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself and was not profits or gains derived by the undertaking for the purpose of the special deduction under Section 80HH. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. STERLING FOODS - (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be, for the application of the words “derived from', a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. Copies of the Judgments are enclosed with these submissions.” Page 15 of 61 59. He further referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Custom…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4187/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…al undertaking could not be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself and was not profits or gains derived by the undertaking for the purpose of the special deduction under Section 80HH. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. STERLING FOODS - (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be, for the application of the words “derived from', a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. Copies of the Judgments are enclosed with these submissions.” Page 15 of 61 59. He further referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Custom…

United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…als Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra), after noticing the above decisions, held that "it is clear that, what is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…als Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra), after noticing the above decisions, held that "it is clear that, what is…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…usiness of providing long term finance. The AO relied upon following decisions to decide against the assessee to exclude ‘other operative income’ from the business income to compute deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act : a) CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579(SC) , and b) Pandian Chemicals Limited v. CIT reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278(SC). 6.2 Thus, the A.O. observed that an amount of ₹2,64,22,322/- being ‘other operative income’ is to be firstly excluded from the business :- 11 -: income to compute deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The A.O. further observed that as per the balance sheet, lon…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…not have any direct nexus and therefore, it was excluded from the profits derived for manufacturing activity eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The AO also supported his view by placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) : 129 Taxman 539 (SC). Page 22 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 35. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). However, the ld. CIT (A) relying on the decision in the case of…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…not have any direct nexus and therefore, it was excluded from the profits derived for manufacturing activity eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The AO also supported his view by placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) : 129 Taxman 539 (SC). Page 22 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 35. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). However, the ld. CIT (A) relying on the decision in the case of…

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…held in the EEFC account cannot be treated as business income, " 16.2 Reliance in this regard is also placed, on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: - (a) Cambay Electric Supply Co. Vs. CIT i 13 ITR 84 (SC) (b) CIT vs. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) 16.3 Also reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Sea Foods Exports P. Ltd. 215 ITR 64 (Mad.) Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cement International Vs. ITO [2009], 185 Taxman 51…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…held in the EEFC account cannot be treated as business income, " 16.2 Reliance in this regard is also placed, on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: - (a) Cambay Electric Supply Co. Vs. CIT i 13 ITR 84 (SC) (b) CIT vs. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) 16.3 Also reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Sea Foods Exports P. Ltd. 215 ITR 64 (Mad.) Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cement International Vs. ITO [2009], 185 Taxman 51…

Ritesh Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7368/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.7368/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Ritesh Agarwal 501, Embassy Centre ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai PAN – ABMPA1788L v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–17(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain Revenue by : Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing – 20.01.2020 Date of Order – 26.02.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 28th November 2018,…

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AABCL1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central circle – 7(3) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6th Floor Cawas…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3), Mumbai vs. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AABCL1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central circle – 7(3) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6th Floor Cawas…

Nhavasheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3364/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…For assessment year 2011-12, this claim was rejected by the learned CIT(A) by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and also referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC). 8. Against the above, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. The learned counsel of the assessee reiterated his claim that the above income should qualify for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. As regards the issue of foreign exchan…

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 705/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…For assessment year 2011-12, this claim was rejected by the learned CIT(A) by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and also referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC). 8. Against the above, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. The learned counsel of the assessee reiterated his claim that the above income should qualify for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. As regards the issue of foreign exchan…

DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi vs. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7483/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14A

…iz. income earned by way of scrap sales, misc. income, freight income, transport subsidy and cash discount not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) on the ground that a direct and proximate connection is absent in respect of the aforesaid incomes earned by the assessee company. 44.1 However, ld. CIT (A) restricted the addition to the tune of Rs.15,28,408/- (transport receipt Rs.12,43,233/-, misc. income Rs.1,31,647/- and provisions for expenses written back Rs.1,53,528/-) against the…