P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT

284 ITR 548Supreme Court of India2006#3181 most cited

What is P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT authority for?

A Supreme Court decision in P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT approves the principle laid down in a Special Bench decision regarding the determination of eligible deductions, specifically approving a 'straight jacket formula' under subsection (3) for computing eligible business profits.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT · section 10B · section 80-IA · eligible deduction · straight jacket formula · eligible business profit · Special Bench decision

Issues it is cited on

section 75section 10bainterest on outstanding receivablesinitial assessment yeartransfer pricing ordersection 80hsection 80hhcsection 10btested partysection 80hharms length pricesection 92b

Judgments citing P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

ITA 1427/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSh. Suresh K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Shah, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80G(5)(iv)

…rector of Income\nTax (Exemption) v. Raunaq Education Foundation [2007] 294 ITR 76\n(Del.) where it is held that the income cannot be given a restricted\nmeaning following the decision of the Supreme Court in different context\nin P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 (SC). Reliance is also placed\nby the Court on the decision of the Supreme Court in Adityapur\nIndustrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] 5 Scale\n321 (SC), where it was held that an exemption granted cannot be taken\naway, unless it is expressly provided for. In such cases where the\nAssessing Officer infers income for a char…

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 123/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 49/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 48/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 47/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 46/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 345/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 477/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10BSection 14A

…CIT (supra), after following the aforesaid circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-s. (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that provisions of s. 10B are different from the provisions of s. 80-IA…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

ITA 146/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Esthen N Hangal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…It is well-settled that exemption provision must be strictly construed but when it is found that an exemption is available then it must be given its full play. This has recently been held by the Supreme Court in P.R.Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 (SC) 27 (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC) in the following words: "It is now a well-settled principle of law that although the exemption provisions are to be construed strictl.yu as regards the applicability thereof to the case of assessee, once it is found that the same is applicable, the same are required to be interpreted liberally. [See Tata Iron & Steel. Co. Ltd. vs. State of J…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 776/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. (Del) found that the income cannot be given a restricted meaning 24 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 following the decision of the Supreme Court in different context in P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 (SC). It also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Adityapur Industrial Area Development authority v. Union of India [2006] 5 Scale 321 (SC), where it was held that an exemption granted cannot be taken away, unless it is expressly provided for. In such cases where the Assessing Officer infers income for a charitable institution other th…

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 232/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. (Del) found that the income cannot be given a restricted meaning 24 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 following the decision of the Supreme Court in different context in P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 (SC). It also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Adityapur Industrial Area Development authority v. Union of India [2006] 5 Scale 321 (SC), where it was held that an exemption granted cannot be taken away, unless it is expressly provided for. In such cases where the Assessing Officer infers income for a charitable institution other th…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 574/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…sis of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Of Madras in Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (24 TAXMAN 604) and the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Murlidhar Bhagwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax (284 ITR 548). The same has been discussed in detail in Ground 3 above. (f) In view of the above discussion and judgments of the Hon'ble Courts as elaborated above, I hold that the AO has erred in not applying the findings of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court (reported in 165 Tax Mann533). The AO has simply proceeded to rely upon the order of Hon'ble High Court…

PRISM CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 804/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…the amendment to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, is prospective in nature or is retrospective. This Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC), relying upon Circular No. 621, dt. 19th Dec., 1991 [(1992) 101 CTR (St) 1] issued by the 30 I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 871 & 872/Mum/2018 CBDT, has held that the amendment in question is prospective in nature and the same is binding on the Revenue. In view of Circular No. 621, dt. 19th Dec., 1991 issued by the CBDT and the aforesaid jud…

M/S. LINDE GLOBAL SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2110/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S Linde Global Support Services Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Private Limited, Kolkata 2Nd Floor, ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata – 700088. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb8581A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…on by the assessee, has dealt with similar issue. In those cases, the difference between the provisions of sections 10B and 80HH was noted and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) and in P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT (284 ITR 548 (SC)) approving the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in International Research Park Laboratories Limited v. Assistant C.I.T. (212 ITR (AT) 1 (SB)), it was held that the profits of the business of the undertaking would include its entire business income. Keeping in view the above decision and the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the consi…

DCIT vs. M/S KEMWELL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

…owth and development of the industry are required to be construed liberally so as to advance the objective of the provision viz., the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Gwallor Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 and P.R. Prabhkar Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 548, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of A. S. Mani Vs Union of India and others [20031 204 ITR 5 and the Hon' ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2005) 94 ITO 242 etc. Similarly, the view that a strict and literal construction should be avoided in interpreting a clause in the Treaty and the intentio…

M/S KEMWELL PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

…owth and development of the industry are required to be construed liberally so as to advance the objective of the provision viz., the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Gwallor Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 and P.R. Prabhkar Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 548, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of A. S. Mani Vs Union of India and others [20031 204 ITR 5 and the Hon' ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2005) 94 ITO 242 etc. Similarly, the view that a strict and literal construction should be avoided in interpreting a clause in the Treaty and the intentio…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…by the assessee, has dealt with similar issue. In those cases, the difference between the provisions of sections 10B and 80HH was noted and after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) and in P.R.Prabhakar versus CIT (284 ITR 548 (SC) ) approving the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in International Research Park Laboratories Limited versus Assistant C.I.T. (212 ITR (AT) 1 (SB) ), it was held that the profits of the business of the undertaking would include its entire business income. Keeping in view the above decision and the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…by the assessee, has dealt with similar issue. In those cases, the difference between the provisions of sections 10B and 80HH was noted and after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) and in P.R.Prabhakar versus CIT (284 ITR 548 (SC) ) approving the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in International Research Park Laboratories Limited versus Assistant C.I.T. (212 ITR (AT) 1 (SB) ), it was held that the profits of the business of the undertaking would include its entire business income. Keeping in view the above decision and the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the…

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…by the assessee, has dealt with similar issue. In those cases, the difference between the provisions of sections 10B and 80HH was noted and after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) and in P.R.Prabhakar versus CIT (284 ITR 548 (SC) ) approving the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in International Research Park Laboratories Limited versus Assistant C.I.T. (212 ITR (AT) 1 (SB) ), it was held that the profits of the business of the undertaking would include its entire business income. Keeping in view the above decision and the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SURAT vs. SHRI AJAY DHANSUKHBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result,appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 290/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.290/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Ajaykumar Dhansukhbhai Circle-2(3), Patel, Surat. Ishwar Krupa, B/H Anand Park, Althan, Althan Bharthana, Tal-Choriyasi, Dist. Surat – 395 007. [Pan:Amapp 3980A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shridileep Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: ShriDileep Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54BSection 68

….CIT(A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer's order may kindly be restored. 8. Replying to the above, the ld. AR supporting the first appellate order as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 548 (SC), the beneficial& intensive provisions relating to deductions should be interpreted liberally and the ld. CIT(A) was right in interpreting the provision s. 54B of the Act as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ld. AR further submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramachandra Rao [2015] 56…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT (284 ITR 548) — Cited in 37 Judgments | BharatTax