However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd.

242 ITR 204High Court2000#4009 most cited

What is However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. authority for?

A deduction under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy is not allowable if the subsidy is not found to be inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of business.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. · 242 ITR 204 · Section 80HH · transport subsidy · deduction · backward area · profitable conduct of business · High Court

Also reported as

109 Taxmann 135

Issues it is cited on

section 80iab section 33b section 75 section 10(2a)section 10(35)section 80h section 40a(9)section 80m section 80ic section 80hh section 80j section 115ja

Judgments citing However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd.

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 7762/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 7839/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 7470/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 3879/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 2836/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 6315/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., 120001 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 .(CaL), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd. 's ca…

M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, R S V S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 80I

…the subject, the Calcutta High Court held: 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the subject, the Calcutta High Court held: 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the subject, the Calcutta High Court held: 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the subject, the Calcutta High Court held: 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the subject, the Calcutta High Court held: 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,, HARYANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1780/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,56,490/- Made On Account Of Product Registration Expense & Not Considering The Findings Of The Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.30,08,17,258/- Made On Account Of Reduction Of The Claim U/S. 80Ic Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 40Section 80I

…have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 204 (Cal) treated the excise duty refund as not derived from industrial undertaking of the assessee and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. We find that as referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CI…

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,, HARYANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1366/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us, The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,56,490/- Made On Account Of Product Registration Expense & Not Considering The Findings Of The Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.30,08,17,258/- Made On Account Of Reduction Of The Claim U/S. 80Ic Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 40Section 80I

…have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 204 (Cal) treated the excise duty refund as not derived from industrial undertaking of the assessee and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. We find that as referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CI…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 41Section 80

…yond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 (Cal.), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd.'s cas…

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…stries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. 'Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 wherein this Court held that transport subsidy is not an immediate source and does not have direct nexus with the activity of an industrial undertaking. Therefore, the amount representing such subsidy cannot be treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived fro…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1998/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 1998/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Cir 3(1) Kolkata...............................………………………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 19, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 0069 M/S. Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd.....……………………………………………………........Respondent 37A, Bentinck Street, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aacch 7120 D] Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri B.K. Singh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 23 , 2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm This Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.07.2016 Passed By The Cit(A) – 1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ic Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

…e heard the rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 204 (Cal) treated the excise duty refund as not derived from industrial undertaking of the assessee and not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. We find that as referred by ld. Counsel for the assessee, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

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

ITA 323/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 (Cal.), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd.'s cas…

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 94/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 (Cal.), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd.'s cas…

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 93/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 (Cal.), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd.'s cas…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

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

ITA 208/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

…eyond all manner of doubt that the subsidies were inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and in arriving at such a decision on the facts the Tribunal committed no error." 22. However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., [2000] 242 ITR 204/109 Taxman 135 (Cal.), the same High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in considering whether a deduction was allowable under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of transport subsidy without noticing the aforesaid earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that very court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Cement Mfg Co. Ltd.'s cas…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

However, in CIT v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. (242 ITR 204) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax