National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (Bom)

106 STC 467Supreme Court of India1997#7617 most cited

What is National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (Bom) authority for?

The expression 'derived from' for the purposes of tax deductions, particularly under Section 36(1)(viii), requires income to originate from the business activity itself. This interpretation is applied when assessing eligibility for deductions.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 1999 to 2026.

Also referred to as

National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise · section 36(1)(viii) · derived from · business income · deduction · processing fees · upfront charges · proximate nexus

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80GSection 115JASection 115JB

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(viia)(c)section 36(1)(via)section 80g(2)(a)proximate nexussection 80g(2)section 80jsection 36(1)(viii)management feessection 114section 36(1)(viia)csr expendituresection 135

Judgments citing National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (Bom)

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…processing fees, upfront charges etc. are derived from the business of long-term finance. Therefore, the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134, Para 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from…

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…processing fees, upfront charges etc. are derived from the business of long-term finance. Therefore, the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134, Para 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from…

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, Cr Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…processing fees, upfront charges etc. are derived from the business of long-term finance. Therefore, the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134, Para 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from…

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, ITO C.R. Building vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…processing fees, upfront charges etc. are derived from the business of long-term finance. Therefore, the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134, Para 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from…

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…processing fees, upfront charges etc. are derived from the business of long-term finance. Therefore, the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CCE in 106 STC 467(SC)(See CLC Page 134, Para 10-13) has explained the expression “derived from…

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…t the Ld. AO while deciding the issues relating to section 8oIB has placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v/s Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 and National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v/.s Collector of Central Excise (1997) 106 STC 467 to interpret the term 'derived from'. Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue, based on his Page 31 ITA Nos. 3456 & 4099/Mum/2004 Α.Υ. 2000-01 M/s United Phosphorous Ltd.) own decision in earlier years' cases as well as decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above. Similarly, for deduction u/s 80HHC, the appeal of the ass…

ITO 33 (3) (4), Mumbai vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Ahdpk9148D

Section 80I

…embling tantamount to manufacturing as the end product is commercially known differently. So far as, the expression “derived from” or “derived by” is concerned, it has been elaborated in various decisions including NOCI Ltd vs Collector Central Excise, (1997) 106 STC 467, 470 (Supreme Court), ratio laid down in Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs CIT 206 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs UP State Agro Industrial Corporation 180 ITR 370 (All.). So far as, the general tests for manufacture/ production are concerned, we find that manufacturing and processing are not clearly demarcated field. The test of manufacture lies in…

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- II

ITA - 124 / 2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -II

ITA - 83 / 2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

ITA/83/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

ITA/124/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

ITA-124/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

ITA-83/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 1 of 32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2015 + ITA 83/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent AND + ITA 124/2003 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellant : Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr S. Krishnan. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sterling Foods

In the result, the appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-002390-002391 - 1996Supreme Court15 Apr 1999
For Respondent: STERLING FOODS, MANGALORE
Section 28Section 80H

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: STERLING FOODS, MANGALORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/04/1999 BENCH: S.P.Bharucha, R.C.Lahoti, JUDGMENT: BHARUCHA.J. The Judgment and order under appeal (190 ITR 274) was pronounced by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on a reference made by the assessee, and the Revenue is in appeal. The High Court answered in favour of the assessee the following question: "Whether, on the fact and circumstances of the case, the T…