Ram Babu and Sons. v. Union of India

222 ITR 606High Court1996#23839 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Ram Babu and Sons. v. Union of India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…ion, it can be said that it is not export out of India and in all other cases, it, amounts to export out of India. In fact this provision was the subject matter of a judgment by the Allahabad High Court. In the case of Ran Babu & Sons v. Union of India [1996] 222 ITR 606 , wherein it is held as under : "Section 80HHC was made to give certain benefits to exporters. However, Explanation (aa ) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991, with effect from April 1, 1986. An exception was carved out from the main provision of section 80HHC. In our opinion, Explanation (aa ) was to plug a loophole in the Act since t…

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/32772/2009HC Karnataka04 Jan 2016

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.32772 Of 2009 (T-Tar) Between: M/S. Sharavathy Conductors (Private) Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director Sri. Kaardam Patel, Son Of Late Sri. S.D.Patel, Aged About 39 Years, No.23, Bci Estate, 6Th Main, Old Madras Road, Bangalore 560 016. …Petitioner (By Shri A. Shankar, Advocate)

Section 143(1)Section 264Section 5Section 80HSection 80I

…ranted a refund of Rs.10,09,763/-. In the year 2002, the Supreme Court had laid down the test for determining whether the transaction is eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, as reported in Ram Babu and Sons vs. Union of India, (1996) 222 ITR 606. Pursuant to the affirmation of the test as laid down, the 4 petitioner was advised to file a revised return. Accordingly, the revised return of income was filed declaring the total income as nil. The petitioner had not claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act and accordingly declared its income as nil. The assessing off…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…o the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Silver and Arts Palace, reported in (2003) 259 ITR 684where the said Court has approved the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Babu and sons Vs. Union of India, reported in (1996) 222 ITR 606 laying down the proposition of law that if both the conditions mentioned in Explanations (a) and (aa) are complied with in a given situation, the transaction should be treated to be an export out of India for the purpose of Section 80HHC of the Act. 21. Now the most vital question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the appell…