What is Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

How many judgments cite Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT?

353 judgments on BharatTax cite Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (262 ITR 278), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 148, Section 115JB, Section 147.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (262 ITR 278)

Deputu Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Endress + Hauser Flowtec (India) P.Ltd., Aurangabad

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

ITA 949/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.949/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 10BSection 271(1)(c)

…from other deposits and Rs.9,36,971/- on account of miscellaneous income. The assessee has treated the said income as business income and claimed deduction u/s.10B of the Act. CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278, Liberty India 317 ITR 218 and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 denied the claim of the assessee. 24. Aggrieved with such confirmation, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 25. Regarding the issues of claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following submissions: “The AO has reduced…

M/S Innova Captab, Baddi vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 734/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

Section 80I

…stify the claim u/s 80IC of the Act against this income. In response it was stated that income was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India Ltd v CIT 317 ITR 218 and disallowed the claim of deduction against other income. The action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) ........................................ 58. After considering the rival submissions carefully we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT (sup…

Innova Captab, Baddi vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1184/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

Section 80I

…stify the claim u/s 80IC of the Act against this income. In response it was stated that income was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India Ltd v CIT 317 ITR 218 and disallowed the claim of deduction against other income. The action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) ........................................ 58. After considering the rival submissions carefully we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT (sup…

DCIT, Cir-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 801ASection 80ISection 80l

…ent Corpn. Ltd., AY- 2011-12 Incidental expenditure relatable to the eligible business activities for claiming deduction u/s 80lA of the Act. Then he relied on the case laws of Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC) to put across his point that none of the income as mentioned above could be held to be derived from the eligible business which could be claimed as deduction u/s 80lA of the Act. In response to the show cause letter in this regard, the assessee responded to the effect that all Incomes arose from the business of infrastructure development ope…

M/S. Neel Impex, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 2044/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.Ano.2044/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y. : 2011-12 M/S. Neel Impex, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.152, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 6(3), Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat. Diamond Park, Sachin, Surat – 394 230. Pan: Aahfn 0599E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10ASection 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ीसी.एम.गग","याियकसद"यतथा"ीओ.पी.मीना, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.ANo.2044/AHD/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y. : 2011-12 M/s. Neel Impex, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.152, 2nd Floor, Ward – 6(3), Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat. Diamond Park, Sachin, Surat – 394 230. PAN: AAHFN 0599E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kushal Gheewala, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Anil Dhaka, Sr.DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by 05.04.2018 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearin…

Hycron Electronics vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…. carrying out substantial expansion in the 8th year is directed to be deleted. B. Deduction on Interest received on margin money 11. The assessing officer relying on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 and Liberty India Limited Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 disallowed the deduction u/s 801C on the same. Since the FDR’s have been made out of business compulsion, the interest earned would be eligible for deduction under section 80IB. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Universal Precision Screws in ITA…

DCIT, Parwanoo vs. M/S Hycron Electronics, Solan

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…. carrying out substantial expansion in the 8th year is directed to be deleted. B. Deduction on Interest received on margin money 11. The assessing officer relying on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 and Liberty India Limited Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 disallowed the deduction u/s 801C on the same. Since the FDR’s have been made out of business compulsion, the interest earned would be eligible for deduction under section 80IB. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Universal Precision Screws in ITA…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Amricon Agrovat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2300/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -Vs- M/S. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan Aadca 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.Cit Dr For The Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 27.9.2016 Of Cit(A)-20, Kolkata, Relating To Ay 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue In This Reads As Follows: “(I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Term 'Manufacture' Occurring In The Context Of Section 80-Ib Does Not Necessarily Require That The End Product Of The Manufacturing Process Is To Be Completely Different From The Ingredients, As Regards Its Chemical Composition, Integral Structure Or Its Use. (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Manufacturing Of Poultry Feeds Does Not Amount To Mere Mixing Together Of All Different Ingredients, Without Involving Any Change In The Chemical Composition Of The Ingredients. (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Preparation Of Poultry Feeds Amount To Production Of An Article Within The Meaning Of Section 80Ib. (Iv) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.1,12,50,626/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80-Ib.

For Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA

Section 14ASection 80Section 801B(4)Section 80I

…ITA No.2300/Kol/2016 M/s. Amricon Agrovat Pvt.Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "B", KOLKATA [Before Hon'ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon'ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -vs- M/s. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (PAN AADCA 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DR For the Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA Date of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order dated 27.9.2016 of CIT(A)-20, Kolkata,…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2304/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2304 & 2305/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 5987 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2304 & 2305/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AACCA 5987 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G. Hangshing, CIT For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Damle, FCA Date of Hearing : 12.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018 ORDER Per Bench: 1. The first appeal of the revenue in I.T.A. No. 2304/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of…

M/S Hubli Electricity Supply Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

ITA/100025/2017HC Karnataka09 Feb 2018

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

Section 260ASection 263Section 80

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA ITA Nos.100025-100027/2017 C/W ITA No.100028/2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCIAL ADVISOR, SRI.B. ABDUL WAJID, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI.B.ABDUL HAI. …COMMON APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS V.K. GURUNATHAN, H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, S PARTHASARATHI JINITHA CHATTERJEE, MALLAHARAO K AND SMT. PRATHIBHA K, ADVS.) IN ITA…

Heinz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…anner, such incomes also qualify for the benefit envisaged u/s 80IC of the Act. The learned representative pointed out that the reliance placed by the lower authorities on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC) is not justified inasmuch as the same was rendered in the context of Sec. 80HH of the Act, which is materially differently worded than Sec. 80IC of the Act. In support, the learned representative relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 420 (Bom.), 23 M/s. Heinz India P…

Hanjer Biotech Energies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2190/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hanjer Biotech Energies Pvt. Dy.Cit 5(1), Ltd., 335, Shalimar House, Mumbai. Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aabch3870H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “G” BENCH BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Hanjer Biotech Energies Pvt. Dy.CIT 5(1), Ltd., 335, Shalimar House, Mumbai. Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400007. PAN: AABCH3870H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Miss. Neelam C. Jadhav : (AR) Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR) Date of hearing : 26.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of Comm…

Value Labs LLP, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, grounds pertaining to ‘other income’ are considered allowed and grounds pertaining to interest income are considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 56

…me of Rs. 41,39,680/-. Considering that these amounts are not derived from the export of software and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods [237 ITR 579] (SC) and CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd., [262 ITR 278], AO excluded the above amounts from the computation u/s. 10A and restricted the deduction accordingly. 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that interest income and other income have direct nexus with the activity of business and that these receipts form part of business of assessee. It relied on the following case law: i. Order of ITAT…

M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 267/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………….Appellant 53A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700016 [Pan : Aaace9530E] D.C.I.T, Cir 8(1)..……………………………………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 03.12.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Under Section 80Ia In Respect Of The Interest Written Back Amounting To Rs. 4,94,57,248/-, Insurance Claim Receipts Amounting To Rs. 15,46,936/- & Other Income Amounting To Rs. 4,808/-. 2. The Assessee In The Present Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Construction Of Highways. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 8,62,32,582/-. In The Said Return, The Interest Liability Written Back Amounting To Rs.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…lopment. In support of this conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on 3 I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Emas Highway Pvt Ltd the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and Pandian Chemical Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, the issue involved in this appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision…

M/S Atria Power Corproation Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

…f business exigencies, therefore the same may be treated as business income. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 262 ITR 278 in which it was held that income earned on FDRs cannot be held to be income derived from industrial undertaking. 6. In rebuttal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that FDRs were purchased on account of business exigencies. The judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sterling Foods (supra) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supr…