Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajit Spices

165 ITR 755Reported decision#12290 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajit Spices

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, CC 8, Bhaktawar, 6th Floor, Old CGO Blgd, 8th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai PAN NO: AAACJ 1000 A (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T 3(2)(1) v. M/s. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. R.NO.674, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhaktawar, 6th Floor, M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN NO: AAACJ 1000 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashok Mehta Department by : Ms. A…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 8, MUMBAI

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, CC 8, Bhaktawar, 6th Floor, Old CGO Blgd, 8th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai PAN NO: AAACJ 1000 A (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T 3(2)(1) v. M/s. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. R.NO.674, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhaktawar, 6th Floor, M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN NO: AAACJ 1000 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashok Mehta Department by : Ms. A…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 254(1)Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

ACIT CC-8, MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

ACIT CC.8, MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI vs. M/S. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. M/S. ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e for deduction under section 80-IB which is derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Spices ( 165 ITR 755) wherein it has been held that that a forward contract of sale can be treated as a hedge transaction if such a contract is supported by a pre existing contract. 9.6 The AO has placed reliance on the decisions of Pandian Chemicals Vs. CIT (262 ITR 278)(SC) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and holding that the hedging profit cannot be…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajit Spices (165 ITR 755) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax