Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

155 ITR 120Supreme Court of India1985#386 most cited

What is Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India · 155 ITR 120 · Section 80M deduction · net dividend income · expenses attributable to dividend · Section 80AB · Section 57(iii) · consistency principle · perpetuate error · assessment year separate unit · judicial conscience · dividend income

Also reported as

1 SCC 4347 CTR 349

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153DSection 1961Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 50(1)section 80absection 80msection 243section 54esection 10(33)section 10(15)section 245hacasus omissussection 14a(1)section 54ec

Judgments citing Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/444/2011HC Delhi18 Jul 2012
Section 14ASection 2(45)Section 5Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

…t in Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Private Limited (supra) and their ratios have been examined subsequently. 16. We have examined the five Judges decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited versus Union of India and Others, (1985) 155 ITR 120. In the said case, the Supreme Court was examining Section 80M after it was incorporated by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967 and placed in the new Chapter VI-A, the heading of which, as noticed above, reads:- “Deductions to be made in computing total income” 17. Section 80M, at the time of enactment, was as under:- “80M. Deduction in respect…

Essel Shyam Communication Ltd

ITA/130/2011HC Delhi17 May 2012

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The First Appellate Authority. 2. By Order Dated 12Th July, 2011, The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Framed In The Respective Itas:-

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…ITANo.130/2011 Page 1 of 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 130/2011 Reserved on : 15th March, 2012. % Date of Decision : 17th May, 2012. ESSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION LTD. .... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …..Respondent Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. + INCOME TAX APPE…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S High Polymer Labs Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/133/2006HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 28Section 80H

…ermining “profits of the business” of the assessee under Explanation (baa) to Section 80-HHC.” 8. The Supreme Court in this case also referred to the earlier decision of the constitution bench in Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 43 and thereafter observed in para 16 and 17 as follows : “16. Similarly, Explanation (baa) has to be construed on its own language and as per the plain natural meaning of the words used in Explanation (baa), the words “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such pro…

Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd vs. Leafin India Ltd Hyd

ITTA/41/1999HC Telangana22 Nov 2011
Section 256(2)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

…IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH ITC No.41 of 1999 Date of Decision: 18.03.2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala …Petitioner Versus Consumer Health Care Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The Revenue has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) raising following substantial questions of law arising out of an order dated 31.03.1998…

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/153/2011HC Telangana20 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…ere conflicting judicial opinions of different Courts/Benches of Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has opined that there was no cleavage of Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Supreme the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of *India* [155 ITR 120] and the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marketing Research Corporation (1987) [61 CTR 204] in support of its conclusion that on the date of filing of return, the controversy was wellsettled, viz., the deduction under Section 80-O of the Act had to be allowed on net income. In the cross-objections filed by th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Ltd

ITA - 1030 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…were conflicting judicial opinions of different Courts/Benches of Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has opined that there was no cleavage of Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Supreme C the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [155 ITR 120] and the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marketing Research Corporation (1987) [61 CTR 204] in support of its conclusion that on the date of filing of return, the controversy was well-settled, viz., the deduction under Section 80-O of the Act had to be allowed on net income. In the cross-objections filed by t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Willamson Financial Services

C.A. No.-003803-003808 - 2005Supreme Court12 Dec 2007

Bench: The 60 : 40 Apportionment Under Rule 8(1) Or From 40% Profits On Sales Taxable As Business Income. 3. Rule 8(1) Of The Said Rule Provides That 40% Of The Composite Income From Sale Of Tea, Grown & Manufactured, Arrived At On Making Of The Apportionment \023Shall Be Deemed To Be Income Liable To Tax\024. 4. Assessees Exported Tea In The Accounting Year. They Were Entitled To Deduction Under Section 80Hhc Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, \0211961 Act\024) In Respect Of The Export. They Were In The Business Of Growing & Manufacturing Tea. Since They Earned Composite Income, Their Case Stood Covered By Rule 8(1) Of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (\0231962 Rule\024 For Short). 5. For The Sake Of Convenience We State The Facts Occurring In Civil Appeal No.3803-3808 Of 2005- Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. In The Returns, The Assessee Claimed Section 80Hhc Deduction Against The Entire Composite Income Before Application Of Rule 8(1).

For Respondent: Willamson Financial Services & Ors
Section 2(45)Section 295Section 5Section 80H

…se of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax \026 (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) which had been approved by the Constitution Bench later on in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. \026 (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) in which it has been held that though a deduction does not appear in Chapter IV, it has a direct impact upon the computation of income under the head \023business profit\024 and, therefore, even if the deduction does not fall within the ambit of Sections 29 to 43A, still if the deduction directly affects the computation of income under…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…he Legislature intended that the interest to be accounted for in computing the profits should be gross interest and not net interest then the provision would have been so worded. Reliance is placed on the decision in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC). 6.1 The submission on behalf of the Department on the first issue is that the words ‘derived from’ used in sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 80HHC necessarily brings in the nexus test. In other words, only such incomes that are directly relatable to exports would qualify for deduction. Also, not all receipts would qualify as inco…