Topman Exports v. CIT

342 ITR 49Supreme Court of India2012#879 most cited

What is Topman Exports v. CIT authority for?

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Topman Exports v. CIT · 342 ITR 49 · Section 28 · Section 80HHC · export incentives · DEPB income · Duty Entitlement Pass Book · advance license benefits · taxability on accrual basis · profit on sale of DEPB · 80HHC deduction · business income

Also reported as

18 Taxmann.com 1203 SCC 593205 Taxmann 119247 CTR 353

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80HHCSection 147Section 148Section 28Section 43BSection 115JA

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 80hsection 80hhcsection 80hhsection 28liable to taxsection 80double taxationsection 37section 154previous yearsection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Topman Exports v. CIT

AAMIR KHATRI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3586/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…1 Aamir Khatri INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 3586/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aamir Khatri vs DCIT – 17(1), Mumbai 183, 2nd Floor, Ashoka Shopping Centre, (erstwhile ACIT-2(1), Lokmnya Tilak Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400 PAN : AGKPK1753E 051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Assessee Shri Suchek Anchaliaya Present for Revenue Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR.) Date of hearing 04/12/2025 Date if pronouncement 19/12/2025 O R D E R Per : Shri Anikesh Banerje…

KHIMJIBHAI GOVABHAI RAVRIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6063/MUM/2025[6063]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkhimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya, 3203, Vasant Marvel Grandeur Chsl, Magathane Telephone Exchange, Borivali East, Mumbai – 400066 ............... Appellant Pan: Ahdpr5483J V/S

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 250

…against the applicant and that the same was also binding on the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. I say that thereafter I was informed that the said judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports v. CIT ( 342 ITR 49] (SC)]. 6. I say that I was accordingly advised by my Tax Consultants that since the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same no longer remained a good law and that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be challenged before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. I say that no sooner I was informed that the…

SUD-CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR 2(1), ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1020/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28Section 35

…he previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration was offered to tax. The AO was of the opinion that the export incentives are taxable on accrual based in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49. Similarly, the AO was of the opinion that the weighted deduction under the provisions of section 35(2AB) is available only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the certificate issued in Form 3CL by DSIR. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 7,32,52,806/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned…

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)

…ear 1997-98 (Tax Appeal No. 129 of 2003) 4. ITAT – AY 1998-99 (ITA No. 1519/A/2002) 5. ITAT – AY 1999-00 (ITA No. 4695/Mum/2005) 3.4 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Topman Exports v/s CIT, Mumbai (2012) 342 ITR 49 and made following submissions: “1.3. The department respectfully submits that the Ld.CIT (A) has rightly upheld the action of the AO in including the advance license benefit receivable in the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 1.4. For substantiating the above mentioned argument, department places reliance on the judgm…

JAWAHARLAL RAMSHARANDAS KAPOOR HUF ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4659/MUM/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250Section 35Section 80H

…The issue is agitated before the Bench related to the rectification of assessment order passed on dated 30/03/2006. The application was made under section 154 by considering the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports & Others vs CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) where the profit on sale of DEPB was duly exempted under section 80HHC of the Act. The claim of deduction under section 80HHCwas duly rejected during the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order 30/03/2006. The assessee challenged the order before the appellate forum. Finally, the issue is migrated to Ho…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…consequential to the acceptance, to whatever extent, of the assessee’s claim of export trading profit, would need to be revisited, toward which we may refer 21 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle to decisions, inter alia, in Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) and IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). Where and to extent accepted, the higher of the two sets of income, i.e., net of deductions, u/ss. 80-IA & 80-HHC, shall prevail inasmuch as the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of the Revenue (Sun Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra)). Further, again, penalty would stand to be…

UNITED PHOSPORUS LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8387/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8375/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD (KNOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3251/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2001-02) ITA.NO. 2516/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2002-03) ITA.NO. 8375/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2001-02) & ITA.NO. 8387/MUM/2011 (A.Y: 2002-03) United Phosphorus Ltd v. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-38 (Now Known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Mumbai- 400020 Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai- 400052 PAN: AAACU3440P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Saisudha Multani & Shri Kirit Ka…

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…AO to calculate deduction u/s.80HHC without reducing 90% of the DEPB license sold without appreciating the facts of the case. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- Page No.| 51 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO. 5939 & 6548/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) ITA.NO. 6745/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05) M/s. Sanofi India Ltd The aforesaid discussion would show that where an assessee has an export turnover exceeding…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…AO to calculate deduction u/s.80HHC without reducing 90% of the DEPB license sold without appreciating the facts of the case. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- Page No.| 51 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO. 5939 & 6548/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) ITA.NO. 6745/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05) M/s. Sanofi India Ltd The aforesaid discussion would show that where an assessee has an export turnover exceeding…

M/S KERALA FEEDS LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIR (1)(1) & TPS , THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 942/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/ARFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 155Section 2(45)Section 245D

…it may be appreciated, no breach of the principle of non-double levy and, besides, is consistent with s. 115JAA. In Sum 3.1 Taxing statutes are to be strictly construed (CI(I) v. Dilip & Co., CA No. 3327 of 2007, dated 10/7/2018; Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT; [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)). That apart, the provisions allowing tax credit stand explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (supra) strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of s.115JAA. This perhaps explains the conflict of judicial opinion; the decisions by the Hon'ble High Courts, as indeed…

DCIT CIR. 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…n under section 80HHC of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 37. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports v/s CIT, [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) held that profit on transfer of DEPB is covered under clause (iiid) of section 28 and 90% of such profit on transfer of DEPB certificate will get excluded from “profits of the business”, while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Since the learned CIT(A) has already directed the AO to reduce only 90% of such income for ca…

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIT CIR. 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…n under section 80HHC of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 37. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports v/s CIT, [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) held that profit on transfer of DEPB is covered under clause (iiid) of section 28 and 90% of such profit on transfer of DEPB certificate will get excluded from “profits of the business”, while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Since the learned CIT(A) has already directed the AO to reduce only 90% of such income for ca…

PREETHA S. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/COCH/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypreetha S. Nair Asst. Cit, Circle - 1 Nut Products Company Kollam Kochupilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abdpn1379H]

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 80H

…ghtly so, the entire amount of Rs.5.77 lakhs to the Profit & Loss Account, it is only the profit component therein that would stand to be excluded on the transfer of the REP, as the assessee claims with reference to the decision in Topman Exports v. CIT[2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC). Further still, as it appears, the same falls u/s. 28(iiie) of the Act, adjustment in respect of which stands co-opted in Explanation (baa) by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 5 Preetha S. Nair v. Asst. CIT 2005 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1998,i.e., AY 1998-99 onwards. As such, considered whichever way, there is no basis for the said adjustment in the ins…

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

C.A. No.-004822-004822 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(2)Section 75Section 80

…en if the immediate reimbursement of such source is the Government or its policy. 3.6 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that in the case of Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (2012) 3 SCC 593, it is observed and held that the DEPB / Duty Drawback are relatable to cost of manufacture and has a direct nexus with the cost of imports. That the said view is in consonance with the view taken earlier in the case of B. Desraj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem, (2010) 14 SCC 510, which held that the Duty CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022…

PICRIC LTD vs. ITO WARD 14 (4),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions contained in para 22 above

ITA 4115/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80H

…ons (2010) 189 taxman 71 (Delhi) 9.10 Coming to the issue of denial of benefit under DEPB Scheme while computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed Bombay High Court decision in the case of Kalpatru Colours and Chemicals 328 ITR 451 (Bom) by holding that where the export turnover of an assessee exceeds Rs. 10 crores, he does not get the benefit of addition of 90% of export incentive under clause (iiid) of section 28 to his export profit of the b…

NARAYAN INDUSTIRES ,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6878/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 234CSection 37Section 75Section 80Section 80I

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 6878/Del/2019: Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Narayan Industries, Vs. Addl. CIT, 504-A, Nagarjune Apartments, Chilla Special Range-19, Regulator, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGFN6026R Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Somya Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been fil…

SARAF EXPORTS,SARDARSHAHAR vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 104/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801BSection 80ISection 80L

…hokshi Contacts (P) Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587) were given prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and thus are per- incurium. The Rajasthan High Court also held that the judgments in the case of Topman Exports [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) and Vikas Kalra v. CIT 7 Saraf Export vs. ACIT [2012] 345 ITR 557 (SC) cited before it, are in context of sec. 80HHC read with Explanation (baa) of the Income Tax Act, and accordingly are distinguishable. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 5.3 Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and the decision of…

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7