← All Phrases

“eligible business”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA975 judgments

The decision most relied on for eligible business is Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283), cited in 1,283 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on eligible business

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

State Bank Of India v. CIT
389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court
817
citing judgments

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT
397 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court
499
citing judgments

A co-operative credit society engaged in banking business with the general public, accepting deposits from non-members and advancing loans to non-members, is treated as a co-operative bank. Such a society falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 80P(4) and is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
188 Taxmann 282 · 2010 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments, particularly with co-operative banks, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not attributable to the core business activities of the society and constitutes "other income", not "profits and gains of business".

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 278 · 2003 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Sterling Foods
237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court
311
citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

Judgments citing eligible business

Da Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80I

derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee

Narayan Industries, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8, New Delhi

In the result, the ground concerning challenge to disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IC is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumarassessment Year 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80Section 80I

corresponding excise duty and custom duty paid by the assessee on purchases. Therefore, for the purposes of determining the profits derived from eligible business, the excise duty and custom duty paid must be necessarily deducted from the duty drawback are claimed from the authorities and only net amount of duty

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project as 'separate undertaking ... deduction u/s 80IA(4) has to be necessarily computed by considering all Wind Mills of the Assessee as a „single unified project which constitutes „eligible business‟. The Assessing Officer observed that after the Assessee for deduction u/s.80IA(4)of the I.T.Act. 8. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project as 'separate undertaking ... deduction u/s 80IA(4) has to be necessarily computed by considering all Wind Mills of the Assessee as a „single unified project which constitutes „eligible business‟. The Assessing Officer observed that after the Assessee for deduction u/s.80IA(4)of the I.T.Act. 8. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. Lb Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project as 'separate undertaking ... deduction u/s 80IA(4) has to be necessarily computed by considering all Wind Mills of the Assessee as a „single unified project which constitutes „eligible business‟. The Assessing Officer observed that after the Assessee for deduction u/s.80IA(4)of the I.T.Act. 8. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed

DCIT, Pune vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project as 'separate undertaking ... deduction u/s 80IA(4) has to be necessarily computed by considering all Wind Mills of the Assessee as a „single unified project which constitutes „eligible business‟. The Assessing Officer observed that after the Assessee for deduction u/s.80IA(4)of the I.T.Act. 8. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed

DCIT Circle 7, Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project as 'separate undertaking ... deduction u/s 80IA(4) has to be necessarily computed by considering all Wind Mills of the Assessee as a „single unified project which constitutes „eligible business‟. The Assessing Officer observed that after the Assessee for deduction u/s.80IA(4)of the I.T.Act. 8. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 724/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 337/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 286/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7532/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

M/S. Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7447/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex- penditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi- nance i.e., the eligible business. (ii) AO has allocated depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from leasing (iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency borrowings ... findings in the present appeal, that is consequent to the findings of the Tribunal on re-characterization of income into eligible and not eligible business. For this also he referred to the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998- 99 wherein

DCIT, CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

This was done because of an amendment brought in Finance Act 2002 requiring furnishing of 10CCB as an audit certificate for the eligible business. The said Form 10CCB was enclosed with the return of income and has been placed at page number 26 of the paper book 1. The assessee ... 80HHC has to be re computed after taking into account the netting of the interest received with interest paid for the purpose of calculating eligible business profit as per clause baa to the explanationu/s 80HHC”. Additional Ground No. 4 “That the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction of profit derived

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 957/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1363/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1274/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

assessee. After holding so, the High Court however, answered the question on the point of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business against the assessee. On going through the judgment, we find that facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present batch