J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

229 ITR 123High Court1998#8882 most cited

What is J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Deductions under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I are independent, meaning a deduction under Section 80-HH does not need to be reduced from profits before calculating the deduction under Section 80-I.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2017.

Also referred to as

J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 80-HH · Section 80-I · independent deductions · amended Section 80-HH(9) · assessment year 1985-86

Judgments citing J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Ratan Plastic Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 213/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Ratan Plastic Industries Vs. Acit 24(3) R.No.401B, 4Th Floor 215, Atrium A-001, Ground Floor, Next To Courtyard Mariott Piramal Chambers, Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaafr3886K Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 45(2)Section 48Section 80HSection 80I

…80IB are independent; AO was not justified to deduct the amount of deduction u/s 80HHC from the eligible profits while computing deduction u/s 80IB. This view finds the support of the following decisions:- 248 ITR 29 (Bom) Nima Specific Family Trust Vs. CIT. 229 ITR 123 (MP) J.P, Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT 251ITR 587 (Guj) CIT Vs. Chokshi Contracts Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 777 (Guj) CIT V/s. Sidhpur Isabgul Processing Company Ltd. 16. In view of the above, I direct the AO to recompute the deduction claimed u/s.80IB. 9 M/s. Ratan Plastic Industries 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 1665/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Madurai vs. Additional CIT, Chennai

ITA 1386/CHNY/2010[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 1020/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 86/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 319/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Chennai

ITA 318/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…ightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue was considered by the Madras High Court in SCM Creations (supra). The Madras High Court by following the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 123 and the judgments of various High Courts, found that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act need not be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Vesuvious India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 563/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A Nos.563&564/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-10, -Vs.- Vesuvious India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacv 8995 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Harish Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Harish Agarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…gross total income. Against this judgment a special leave petition was filed in this court which was 7 A.Yr.2003-04 & 2004-05 dismissed on the ground of delay on July 21, 2000 (see [2000] 245 ITR (St.) 71). The decision in J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [1998]229 ITR 123 (MP) was followed by the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Alpine Solvex P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special leave petition against this decision was dismissed by this court on January 12,2001, (see [2001] 247 ITR (St.) 36). This view has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases again…

Commissioner of Incoem Tax Del vs. Unipatch Rubber Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 38 / 2000HC Delhi05 Jan 2015
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification.] 6. This Court notices that the question of law framed has now been answered in a series of decisions. In the first case i.e. J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax; (1998)229 ITR 123, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after noticing that sub-Section 9 of Section 80-HH was amended by Act No.30 of 1981, nevertheless, in relation to assessment year 1985-86, proceeded to hold that the benefits under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I were independent and consequently, there was no question of giving effect to Section 80-HH(9) and therea…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del-III vs. Unipatch Rubber Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/38/2000HC Delhi05 Jan 2015
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification.] 6. This Court notices that the question of law framed has now been answered in a series of decisions. In the first case i.e. J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax; (1998)229 ITR 123, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after noticing that sub-Section 9 of Section 80-HH was amended by Act No.30 of 1981, nevertheless, in relation to assessment year 1985-86, proceeded to hold that the benefits under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I were independent and consequently, there was no question of giving effect to Section 80-HH(9) and therea…

Income Tax Bangalore vs. Shalini Bhupal

ITTA/38/2000HC Telangana20 Jun 2013

Great Eastern Exports vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/267/2008HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…. Interplay of Section 80HHC and 80-I involving same kind of issue first came up for consideration before Madhya Pradesh High Court and was discussed elaborately in its decision contained in J.P. Tabacco Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 229 ITR 123 (M.P.). The question which was framed for the opinion of the Court, in that case was of following nature :- ITA 267 OF 2008, ITA 1316 OF 2008, ITA 4 OF 2009, Page 7 of 37 ITA 907 OF 2009, ITA 906 OF 2008, ITA 1002 OF 2008 “Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80-I is to be allowed…

J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 123) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax