Topman Exports v. CIT

342 ITR 49Supreme Court of India2012#868 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 366,470 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
Read the full judgment

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

Baby Marine Exports, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Chandy Eapen, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

…AY and in this regard, the assessee had already furnished a letter dated 9.10.2015 before the AO. The ld. AR further submitted that the income earned by the assessee is from the sale of DEPB licenses and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman v. CIT, 342 ITR 49 had held that the income derived from sale of DEPB licenses to be assessable under the head profits & gains of business. It is the submissions of the ld. AR that the assessee was compelled to maintain all the infrastructure and facilities to Page 5 of 6 facilitate the sale of DEPB license and therefore the expenses incurred should be allowed as a…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…e nexus with the business of the eligible undertaking and therefore was held to be eligible for computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. We find that similar view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT(2012) 18 Taxmann.com 120 in the context of duty drawbacks received on exports. The relevant extracts of Topman Exports (Supra) are reproduced hereunder; I.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. La Opala RG Ltd. 16 "Section 28(iiib), read with section 28(iiid) of the Incometax Act 1961 Business income Cash assistance Assessment year 200203 Whether DE…

Narayan J. Pagarani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 659/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

…ein the Tribunal allowed the same in favour of the Revenue following the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals 328 1TR 451. 2. Subsequently, on 8th Feb., 2012, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed order in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 whereby the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpatru Colours & Chemicals has been reversed. 3. In Feb., 2012, the assessee was advised by his consultants that now as the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue of deduction u/s 80HHC in favour of the assessee, the assessee should file a rectification application be…

Narayan J. Pagarani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 21 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 658/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

…ein the Tribunal allowed the same in favour of the Revenue following the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals 328 1TR 451. 2. Subsequently, on 8th Feb., 2012, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed order in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 whereby the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpatru Colours & Chemicals has been reversed. 3. In Feb., 2012, the assessee was advised by his consultants that now as the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue of deduction u/s 80HHC in favour of the assessee, the assessee should file a rectification application be…

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground No

ITA 349/HYD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri P.S.R.V.V.Surya Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR
Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 37Section 80H

…1 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Vs. DCIT,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AAACD7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.S.R.V.V.Surya Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 08. 07.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 80l

…e nexus with the business of the eligible undertaking and therefore was held to be eligible for computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. We find that similar view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT(2012) 18 Taxmann.com 120 in the context of duty drawbacks received on exports. The relevant extracts of Topman Exports (Supra) are reproduced hereunder; "Section 28(iiib), read with section 28(iiid) of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Business income - Cash assistance - Assessment year 2002-03 - Whether DEPB is a 'cash assistance' receivable by assessee and is covered un…

M/S. Torrent Pharmaceuticals (Sikkim), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2072/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nilabhra Dasgupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB credit, but the sale value of less the face value of the DEPB that will represent profit on transfer of DEPB credit by the assessee. Heavy reliance was placed in the case of Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49(SC). Extending such logic, it was further held that even other amounts, such as, interest or rent when are to be excluded for the purpose of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. Ninety per cent. of not the gross rent or gross interest, but the net thereof shall have be excluded. It was observed as under: 'If we now apply Explanation (baa…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 882/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 881/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 880/CHNY/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 879/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1259/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1258/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1257/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1256/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1255/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1254/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC by holding that they are in the nature of other income, but not profit derived from export activity. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (342 ITR 49)(SC), directed the AO to include amount received under DEPB license for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. :-12-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 14. The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that DEPB is covered under export incentives and hence, same is allowable as…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2072/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…xplanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act, 90% of such receipts cannot be reduced for computing deduction under section 80HHC of the act. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Topman Exports vs CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. 39. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and submitted that disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissi…

ACIT Cir. - 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3187/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…xplanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act, 90% of such receipts cannot be reduced for computing deduction under section 80HHC of the act. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Topman Exports vs CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. 39. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and submitted that disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissi…

M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…xplanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act, 90% of such receipts cannot be reduced for computing deduction under section 80HHC of the act. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Topman Exports vs CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. 39. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and submitted that disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissi…