IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT

266 ITR 521Supreme Court of India2004#854 most cited

What is IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

When the provisions of a fiscal statute are unambiguous, they must be interpreted strictly, and benefits not explicitly provided cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting the clear words in the section.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT · 266 ITR 521 · statutory interpretation · fiscal statutes · unambiguous provisions · tax benefits · deductions · Section 80IB · Section 80HHC · strict construction · legislative intent

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80IBSection 80IB(2)Section 80IB(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 80hsection 28(iv)section 80hhsection 80hhcsection 115jamat creditretrospective amendmentsection 72section 36(2)deduction under section 80iasection 245

Judgments citing IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT

ITO-27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi vs. Viral Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6718/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80I

…iance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Petron Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. reported in 175 ITR 523, Pandian Chemicals Ltd. reported in 262 ITR 278, N.C. Budharaja & Co. reported in 204 ITR 412, IPCA Laboratories Ltd. reported in 266 ITR 521 to arrive at the view that the tax incentive by way of deduction. 80 IB of the Act is predominantly for the purpose of augmenting affordable dwelling and ought to be interpreted in that light. In this view 5 Viral Industries, Mumbai. of the matter, the incentive provisions must be construed in a manner which advances the object and intention of…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…e same mode of the taxable income of the assessee." (iii) Honourable Supreme Court also considered the above decision in case of Karamchand Premchand Ltd. (supra) and Hari Prasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) in IPCA laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 594/266 ITR 521 in para number 16 as Under:- "16. Faced with this situation, it was submitted that even a loss is a negative profit. In support of the submission, reliance was placed upon the authority of this Court in the case of CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118. In this case the meaning of loss was being considered in the context of capital…

Saravanan Arumugam, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 2966/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

…of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 237 ITR 589 have held that a fiscal statute has to be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. DCIT, 266 ITR 521 have held that where there is no ambiguity in the provisions of statute, provisions cannot be interpreted to confer benefit on the assessee and benefits which are not available cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting clear word in the section. It is evident in this case that the law provides the taxpayer a right to contest a stamp duty…

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 524/AHD/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, I.T.A. Nos.521& 522/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2000-2001 & 2002-2003) Inox India Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1, Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PAN No.AAACI4416P] And I.T.A. Nos.523 & 524/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005) Inox India Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1(2), Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PA…

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 523/AHD/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, I.T.A. Nos.521& 522/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2000-2001 & 2002-2003) Inox India Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1, Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PAN No.AAACI4416P] And I.T.A. Nos.523 & 524/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005) Inox India Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1(2), Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PA…

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle- 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 522/AHD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, I.T.A. Nos.521& 522/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2000-2001 & 2002-2003) Inox India Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1, Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PAN No.AAACI4416P] And I.T.A. Nos.523 & 524/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005) Inox India Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1(2), Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PA…

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 Now Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 521/AHD/2023[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, I.T.A. Nos.521& 522/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2000-2001 & 2002-2003) Inox India Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1, Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PAN No.AAACI4416P] And I.T.A. Nos.523 & 524/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005) Inox India Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 9th Floor, KP Platina, Income Tax, Racecourse, Circle-1(2), Vadodara-390007. (Now Circle-1(1)(1)) Vadodara. [PA…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…assessee’s claim of export trading profit, would need to be revisited, toward which we may refer 21 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle to decisions, inter alia, in Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) and IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). Where and to extent accepted, the higher of the two sets of income, i.e., net of deductions, u/ss. 80-IA & 80-HHC, shall prevail inasmuch as the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of the Revenue (Sun Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra)). Further, again, penalty would stand to be finally restricted to the sum, i.e., qua the adjustment, n…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…der 80HHC(1) is not allowable as the profits derived from exports of goods computed under clause (c) of section 80HHC(3) has resulted in a negative figure by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT (No.1) (251 ITR 401). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in not giving any finding in respect of the following issues: (A) While computing the 'profit of the business' for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC: (i) in reducing 90% of the following items from the profits of the business inspite of the fact that the said items were not speci…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

…t, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO has correctly set off the loss against profit for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC in the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in IPCA Laboratories Ltd which has been confirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 266 ITR 521 (SC). 22. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing the Ld.AR submitted that all the above issues in relation to deduction u/s 80HHC have been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2000- 01 and therefore submitted that the issues stand covered by the decision of the Tribunal. M/s. Hi…

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

…rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80 HHC admissible to the appellant. M/s. MMTC Ltd. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the 6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in applying the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Labortries Ltd. vs DCIT ( 266 ITR 521) to the case of appellant since it had exported only trading goods governed by Sec. 80 HHC (3) (b) of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not netting of the interest expense against interest income, which is intimately linked to each other, w…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), vide order dated 14/12/2021, for the assessment year 2002-03 dismissed similar ground filed by the assessee, inter-alia, in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratories, 266 ITR 521 (SC). Therefore, in view of the above, we dismiss ground No. 4.8 raised by the assessee in the present appeal. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 41. The issue arising in grounds No. 5.1 and 5.2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the allocation of head office expenditure and reducing the same from deduc…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), vide order dated 14/12/2021, for the assessment year 2002-03 dismissed similar ground filed by the assessee, inter-alia, in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratories, 266 ITR 521 (SC). Therefore, in view of the above, we dismiss ground No. 4.8 raised by the assessee in the present appeal. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 41. The issue arising in grounds No. 5.1 and 5.2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the allocation of head office expenditure and reducing the same from deduc…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…Equipment Limited, without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirke Construction Equipment Limited has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Limited vs. DC IT in 266 ITR 521 (SC). (b)The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Section 80-AB had an overriding effect over all other sections in the Chapter Vl-A and hence, no deduction U/S.80-HHE was available to the assessee on account of there being no business income of the nature referred to in the Section 80-HHE was included in the gross total income after set-off of br…

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. The Dy CIT 1(1)

ITA 1039/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…n this issue. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.‖ ITA. No. 1039 & 1244/Mum/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 34. We note that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has, in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax: [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC), held that for calculating Profits Earned from Exports under Section 80HHC of the Act, profits and losses from export of self-manufactured goods as well as trading goods are to be taken into consideration. ―10. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Dastur. Undoubtedly Section 80HHC has been incorporated with a view to providing inc…

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 955/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENTAND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.955/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2002–03) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(3), Mumbai v/s M/s. Zensar Technolgies Ltd. Magnet House, 2nd Floor …………….Respondent NarottamMorarjee Marg Ballard Estatem, Mumbai 400 038 PAN – AAACF0742K ITA No.276/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2002–03) M/s. Zensar Technolgies Ltd. Magnet House, 2nd Floor ……………. Appellant NarottamMorarjee Marg Ballard Estatem, Mumbai 400 038 PAN – AAACF0742K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of…

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 276/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENTAND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.955/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2002–03) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(3), Mumbai v/s M/s. Zensar Technolgies Ltd. Magnet House, 2nd Floor …………….Respondent NarottamMorarjee Marg Ballard Estatem, Mumbai 400 038 PAN – AAACF0742K ITA No.276/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2002–03) M/s. Zensar Technolgies Ltd. Magnet House, 2nd Floor ……………. Appellant NarottamMorarjee Marg Ballard Estatem, Mumbai 400 038 PAN – AAACF0742K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd ( Formerly International Computers (India) Ltd ), Mumbai vs. The CIT -2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 80H

…us placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Vippy Solvex Products Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 273 ITR 107 and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories vs. DCIT reported in 266 ITR 521, in support of the contentions of the ld. CIT. We find there are two stages of computation of deduction u/s.80HHE of the Act. The first stage is the profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHE has to be computed in the following formula:- Profits of the business x export turnover Total Turnover 6.3. As stated supra, profits of the business is to be…

Microstrategy Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Internationa Taxation), Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2686/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judical Member Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…been followed in the case of M/s BharatiAxa General Insurance Co Ltd [AAR No 845 of 2009 • CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. (346 ITR 467) (Karnataka HC) • Raymond Ltd vs DCIT (Mumbai Tribunal) (86 ITD 791) • Boston Consulting Group (Mumbai Tribunal) (280 ITR 1) • DDIT v Preroy AG (Mumbai Tribunal) (309 SOT 187) • Mark & Spencer Reliance India Pvt. Ltd. (38 taxmann 190) (Mumbai Tribunal) • Anapharm Inc (305 ITR 394) (AAR) • ITO vs Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.(Delhi Tribunal) (44 CCH 314) • Intertek Testing Services India Pvt Ltd (307 ITR 418) (AAR) • Hughes Systique India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (50 Taxmann.com 25) (De…

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 606/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1st floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. PAN No. AABCM 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. PAN No. AABCM 8019 K Appellant Responde…