Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd.

284 ITR 435High Court2006#24354 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 80-I(1)Section 80-I(6)Section 80A(2)Section 80AB Section 80B(5)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd.

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma & Shri Apurva Chudhry, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R

Section 80I

…and loss will have to be considered and if the net figure is the positive profit then the assessee will be entitled to a deduction but if the net figure is a loss then the assessee will not be entitled to a deduction. In CIT v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 435 (All.) it is held that section 80A(1) of the Act says that in computing the total income of an assessee it shall be allowed from the gross total income in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U whereas sub-section (2) of section 80A says that the aggregate amount of the deduct…

ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. VARSHA P. SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4489/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaina C I T - 17(2) Smt. Varsha P. Shah Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor 234/26, 2Nd Floor, Om Niwas 1 Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel Kartak Road, Wadala Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400031 Pan - Aaqps4783G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar SoniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjai Parikh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…ent material on record to establish and sustain bad faith. It cannot be presumed that an assessee was selling by short weighs. (6) Your honour would further appreciate that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of C1T Vs. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 435 (All) held that addition on account of steep fall in profits was not justified where assessee claimed that it had to sell goods at lower than market price because of inability to sell at normal price. Your honour would appreciate that in the present case, due to increase in dollar, the cost of imports increased substantially. However, due to rece…

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

C.A. No.-004190-004191 - 2002Supreme Court13 Mar 2008

For Respondent: Assessing Officer, Income Tax,Mumbai & Anr

Section 260Section 80Section 80ASection 80GSection 80HSection 80J

…sidered and if the net figure is the positive profit then the assessee will be entitled to a deduction but if the net figure is a loss then the assessee will not be entitled to a deduction. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 435 (ALL) it is held that Section 80A (1) of the Act says that in computing the total income of an assessee it shall be allowed from the gross total income in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Section the deductions specified in Section 80C to 80U whereas sub-section 2 of Section 80A says that the aggregate amount of the dedu…