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 367,514 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…ode of the taxable income of the assessee.‖ (iii) Honourable Supreme Court also considered the above decision in case of Karamchand Premchand (supra) and CIT versus Hari Prassad (supra) in IPCA laboratories Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2004) 266 ITR 521 in para number 16 as Under:- 81 | P a g e ―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 conte…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…onsideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. A.R and in the backdrop of the facts of the case before us are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. As observed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC), that even though a liberal interpretation has to be given, the interpretation has to be as per the wording of the section. If the wordings of the section are clear, then benefits, which are not available under the section cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting the words in the section. Adopting a similar view, the Hon‘ble Apex C…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…onsideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. A.R and in the backdrop of the facts of the case before us are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. As observed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC), that even though a liberal interpretation has to be given, the interpretation has to be as per the wording of the section. If the wordings of the section are clear, then benefits, which are not available under the section cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting the words in the section. Adopting a similar view, the Hon‘ble Apex C…

Ramnath and Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos…2506-2509 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 23535 – 23538 of 2016) RAMNATH & CO. ….Appellant (s) Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ….Respondent (s) With Civil Appeal No. 2510 of 2020 @ SLP(C) No. 23699 of 2016 JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J. PRELIMINARY WITH BRIEF OUTLINE Leave granted. 2. The short point calling for determination in these appeals against the common judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in a batch of appeals is as to whether the income received by the appellant…

M/S Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2712/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…s not allowable. 4.6. The overriding effect of section 80AB on the sections dealing with deductions in Chapter-VI A of the Act was emphatically clarified by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). The relevant part of the decision is reproduced below for ready reference: "4.... It shows that even though section 80HHC has to be construed in the light of the object of giving incentives, it still has to be interpreted as per its language. An interpretation which leads to an absurd result or a result not contemplated by its language can…

M/S. Indagro Foods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, with Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr.DR’s)
Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7343/Mum/2008 (Assessment Year 2004-05) M/s Indagro Foods Ltd., ACIT (OSD)-2(1), Allana House, 4 J.A. Allana Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marg, Kolaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. PAN: AAACI6584Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, with Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Apurva Shah (AR) Respondent by : Shri Chaitnya Anjaria and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr.DR’s) Date of Hearing : 12.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)…

M/S Bisseswariall Mannalal & Sons, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-33, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee( Ground No

ITA 1140/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1140/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bisseswarlall Vs. Dcit, Cir-33, Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row,3Rd Floor, Mannalal& Sons 12, Pretoria Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata Kolkata – 71. – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 7736 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80Section 80I

…urther observe that :- "We are of the view that there is no ambiguity in the provision as stipulated under the said schedule 14 and this is a settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2004]266 ITR 521/135 Taxman 594 that when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the statute, the provisions cannot be interpreted to confer benefit on the assessee. Even Mumbai High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 26/97 Taxman 501 (Bom) has categorically held that principles of beneficial interpretation would apply on…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…mount based on adjusted export turnover to adjusted total turnover and further computed deduction at rate of 70% on pro- rated amount thereof in terms of section 80HHC(1B)(ii) of Act. 71. The ld AO recomputed the same relying on judgment of M/s IPCA Lab Ltd.- 266 ITR 521(SC), Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd.- 192 CTR 47 (Bom) and Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) letter dated Sept 08, 2004 that third proviso to 80HHC(3) of Act refers to „profits‟ only and therefore cannot be relied on in case of „losses‟, as have occurred in present case. Hence, no deduction under section 80HHC can be claimed by Appellant.…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…mount based on adjusted export turnover to adjusted total turnover and further computed deduction at rate of 70% on pro- rated amount thereof in terms of section 80HHC(1B)(ii) of Act. 71. The ld AO recomputed the same relying on judgment of M/s IPCA Lab Ltd.- 266 ITR 521(SC), Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd.- 192 CTR 47 (Bom) and Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) letter dated Sept 08, 2004 that third proviso to 80HHC(3) of Act refers to „profits‟ only and therefore cannot be relied on in case of „losses‟, as have occurred in present case. Hence, no deduction under section 80HHC can be claimed by Appellant.…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…mount based on adjusted export turnover to adjusted total turnover and further computed deduction at rate of 70% on pro- rated amount thereof in terms of section 80HHC(1B)(ii) of Act. 71. The ld AO recomputed the same relying on judgment of M/s IPCA Lab Ltd.- 266 ITR 521(SC), Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd.- 192 CTR 47 (Bom) and Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) letter dated Sept 08, 2004 that third proviso to 80HHC(3) of Act refers to „profits‟ only and therefore cannot be relied on in case of „losses‟, as have occurred in present case. Hence, no deduction under section 80HHC can be claimed by Appellant.…

DCIT, Ernakulam vs. Abad Exim Private Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 249/COCH/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Mar 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.Radhesh L.Bhatt, CA
Section 10ASection 260ASection 80H

…ame was allowed by the first 2 M./s.Abad Exim Private Limited. appellate authority. The first appellate authority allowed the claim of the assessee by finding that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT [(2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC)] was not applicable to the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that both the supporting manufacturer and the export house have profits and hence the decision in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable and the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act. 2.1 The Hon’ble High Court…

M/S Globe Precision Industries Pvt. Ltd., Solan vs. ITO, Solan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 871/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…e of HimTeknoforge(supra) it was held that the profits and losses of the priority units were to be netted for the purpose of calculating of deduction u/s 80IC on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 and ITO vs Induflex Products Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 1, which decisions had been rendered in the context of Section 80HHC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that Section 80AB which dealt with the incomes on which deduction was to be allowed under Chapter VIA, had a not withstanding clause and since Section 80HCC did not have the same, the…

M/S Him Teknoforge Ltd, Baddi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 784/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…e of HimTeknoforge(supra) it was held that the profits and losses of the priority units were to be netted for the purpose of calculating of deduction u/s 80IC on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 and ITO vs Induflex Products Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 1, which decisions had been rendered in the context of Section 80HHC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that Section 80AB which dealt with the incomes on which deduction was to be allowed under Chapter VIA, had a not withstanding clause and since Section 80HCC did not have the same, the…

M/S Him Teknoforge Ltd., Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 1180/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…e of HimTeknoforge(supra) it was held that the profits and losses of the priority units were to be netted for the purpose of calculating of deduction u/s 80IC on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 and ITO vs Induflex Products Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 1, which decisions had been rendered in the context of Section 80HHC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that Section 80AB which dealt with the incomes on which deduction was to be allowed under Chapter VIA, had a not withstanding clause and since Section 80HCC did not have the same, the…

M/S. Kaushlya Export, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1563 & 1564/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr.D.R
Section 154Section 251Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1563 & 1564/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03) M/s. Kaushalya Export बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 185, New Cloth Market, Ward 11(4), Ahmedabad Vs. Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad-380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADFK7439G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shr…

Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1634/HYD/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…further appeal to ITAT and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 for the A.Y 1999-2000 and 2002-03 vide order dated 29.05.2009, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 held that the assessee is not eligible for such deduction i.e. u/s 80HHC when there is negative profit in the aggregate. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos 1627 1628 and 1634 of 2016 Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, as regards the computation of profit on sale of DEPF license is concerned, the Bench remitted the issue to the file of the AO for r…

Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1628/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…further appeal to ITAT and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 for the A.Y 1999-2000 and 2002-03 vide order dated 29.05.2009, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 held that the assessee is not eligible for such deduction i.e. u/s 80HHC when there is negative profit in the aggregate. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos 1627 1628 and 1634 of 2016 Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, as regards the computation of profit on sale of DEPF license is concerned, the Bench remitted the issue to the file of the AO for r…

Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1627/HYD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…further appeal to ITAT and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 for the A.Y 1999-2000 and 2002-03 vide order dated 29.05.2009, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 held that the assessee is not eligible for such deduction i.e. u/s 80HHC when there is negative profit in the aggregate. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos 1627 1628 and 1634 of 2016 Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, as regards the computation of profit on sale of DEPF license is concerned, the Bench remitted the issue to the file of the AO for r…

M/S Shoghi Communications Ltd., Shimla vs. DCIT, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 506/CHANDI/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 263Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…total income of Rs. 44,19,351/-." 3. It is seen that the AO in pursuance to the above direction after hearing the assessee rejected the assessee’s submissions who had argued that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. Versus CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC) was not applicable. The assessing officer relying upon the mandate of the above decision held that Section 80AB has an overriding effect over all provisions contained in Chapter-VI including Section 80IB. Thus, as a result thereof the excess deduction of Rs. 13,47,105/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 4. The asse…

Dy. C.I.T.1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 365/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 80Section 80I

…nly source of income of the assessee. 5.2 The appellant has elaborately differentiated in the submission the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the A.O. CIT vs. Him Teknoforge Ltd. (2013) 256 CTR 393 (HP-HC); IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC); ITO vs. Induflex Products (P) Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 1 (SC); A.M. Moosa vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and Synco Industries Ltd. vs. Assessing Officer & ANR (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC). 5.3 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the A.O. has erred in netting off…