CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448High Court2010#3369 most cited

What is CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. authority for?

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. · 328 ITR 448 · Section 80AB · Section 80IA · gross total income · business income · Chapter VI-A deductions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(34)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 194QSection 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhesection 80abretention moneysection 10(33)section 80hsection 80csection 80hhinitial assessment yearsection 72eligible businesssection 253(3)section 70

Judgments citing CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2738/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…rtains to the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) extent of ‘gross total income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Chapter und…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…rtains to the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) extent of ‘gross total income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Chapter und…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/S Reliance Energy Ltd (Formerly Bses Ltd.) Through Its M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

C.A. No.-001327-001327 - 2021Supreme Court28 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

Section 80Section 80A

…sy in this case pertains to the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) 9 | P a g e extent of ‘gross total income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any sectio…

National Bulk Handling Corporation Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 303/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…’ble High Court, the restriction in terms of section 80AB(2) is to the gross total income and not to the total profits of business. Hon’ble High Court came to such conclusion after referring to its earlier judgments in: (i) CIT v. Tridos Laboratories Limited, 328 ITR 448(Bom) (ii) CIT v. Eskay Knit India Ltd. ITA No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010)(Bom) (iii)CIT v. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.3224 of 2009, dated 18/10/2010(Bom) 7.1 In our considered opinion, the aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court clearly covers the controversy in favour of the assessee and the income-tax authorities are not jus…

M/S. Topaz Investments Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bangalore

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

ITA 1687/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (DR)
Section 4Section 80I

…Jindal Aluminium Ltd. vs. ACIT as reported in 54 SOT 283 (Bangalore), copy available on pages 99 to 106 of paper book. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. as reported in 328 ITR 448, copy available on pages 107 to 109 of paper book. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is regarding quantum of deduction allowable u/s. 80IA (4) of the I.T. Act. For the sake of ready reference, first we reproduce the provisions of sub sec…

Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4383/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Sterlite Technologies Acit,(L.T.U.), Limited, 29Th Centre No. 1, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Godrej Millennium World Trade Centre, Vs. 9, Koregaon Road, Pune, Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-411001, Mumba-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaecs8719B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.V. Jhaveri Shri B.S. Bist-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2017 16/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 14ASection 80ASection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sterlite Technologies ACIT,(L.T.U.), Limited, 29th Centre No. 1, बनाम/ 4th Floor, Godrej Millennium World Trade Centre, Vs. 9, Koregaon Road, Pune, Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-411001, Mumba-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS8719B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri B.V. Jhaveri Shri B.S. Bist-DR राज"व क"…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2139/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 80ASection 80I

…the amount of “gross total income” and not to the amount of “business income” included therein, as held by the tax authorities. He further submitted that identical view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (328 ITR 448), M/s. Eskay Knit (India) Ltd. (I.T. Appeal No. 184 of 2007 dated 25.3.2010) and also by other High Courts. 6. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SYNCO industries Ltd. (supra) and submitted that the tax authorities were right in restricting the ded…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT RG 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…15 ITA 147/Mum/2016 unit has to be considered as a separate and independent unit. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- a) Canara Workshops -161 ITR 320 (SC); b) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand,…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…15 ITA 147/Mum/2016 unit has to be considered as a separate and independent unit. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- a) Canara Workshops -161 ITR 320 (SC); b) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand,…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Syngenta India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…15 ITA 147/Mum/2016 unit has to be considered as a separate and independent unit. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- a) Canara Workshops -161 ITR 320 (SC); b) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand,…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai vs. Oberoi Reality Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost

ITA 6925/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 80

…Boda & Co Private Ltd(supra). At this point, we may note that the aforesaid view of the Bombay High Court is also in consonance with the decision in case of K’N”IT (India) Ltd vide ITA No 184 of 2007 dated 25 March 2010 and in case of Tridoss laboratories Ltd 328 ITR 448 (Bombay). 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer suffer from an infirmity of being misconceived in law and, therefore, initiation of proceeding thereupon is bad in law. Consequently the assessment finalized by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act dated 6 December 2012…

Asst CIT Cir 23, Mumbai vs. Oberoi Reality Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6044/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri R.MurlidharFor Respondent: Smt. Sudha Ramachandran
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…upra). At this point, we may note that the aforesaid view of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is also in consonance with its decisions in the case of Eskay K’N”IT (India) Ltd. vide ITA No. 184 of 2007 dated 25.3.2010 and in the case of Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 (Bom). 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer suffer from an infirmity of being misconceived in law and, therefore, initiation of proceeding thereupon is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment finalised by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 6.12.2012 is held…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…r section 80IB, each unit has to be considered as a separate and independent unit. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- a) Canara Workshops -161 ITR 320 (SC); b) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…r section 80IB, each unit has to be considered as a separate and independent unit. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- a) Canara Workshops -161 ITR 320 (SC); b) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand…