CIT v. Sterling Foods (supra)

246 ITR 97High Court2000#20174 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sterling Foods (supra)

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SMS PARYAVARAN (P) LTD., DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 205/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Sms Paryavaran (P) Ltd. Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, Sh-2, Vardhaman Grand C. R. Building Plaza, Plot No-7, Mangalam New Delhi Place, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi Aaacs2177F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…rest is part of the business activity carried out by the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon following decisions: 1. Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 SCC (2) 644 2. Sterling Foods vs. CIT 150 ITR 292 (Kar) 3. CIT vs. Jameel Leathers & Ors. 246 ITR 97 (Mad) 4. M/s Ashok Leyland vs. CIT (SC) decision dated 19.12.1996 4 5. CIT vs. Cement Distributors Ltd. 208 ITR 355 (Del.) 6. CIT vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 233 ITR 497 (Mad) 8. The Ld. AR made an alternative plea that Section 37 of the Income Tax Act lays down that expenses incurred and income should be set off against that particular income.…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. ULKA SEA FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5259/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Kishore I. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss (CIT-DR) &

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

…elhi High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 324 (Del), wherein their Lordships applying the decision of apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (supra) and referring to CIT vs. Jameel Leathers & Uppers (2000) 246 ITR 97 (Mad), CIT vs. Viswanathan & Co. (2003) 181 CTR (Mad) 335 has held as under: "There must be, for the application of the words 'derived from', a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. On the raw materials utilized as inputs the assessee pays duty and on the total component of costs the assessee adds his profit c…

ULKA SEAFOODS P.LTD,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4903/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Kishore I. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss (CIT-DR) &

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

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

…gainst the assessee by holding that duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefit do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80I/80IA/80IB of the Act. Identically, Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Jameel Leathers 246 ITR 97 (Mad.) held that income from duty drawback cannot be allowed for the purposes for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 2.5. We are aware that a provision in the taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. As was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT (1992) 62 taxma…