Search Results For: 80HHC


CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Supreme Court issues strictures against the income-tax department stating that it is "extremely unhappy" with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the SLP and demands that "The concerned authorities need to wake up"

We are extremely unhappy with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the special leave petition but make no other comment. The concerned authorities need to wake up.

Jagraon Exports vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80HHC: Sale proceeds of scrap cannot be included in total turnover

The issue in these appeals pertains to the question whether the proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would be included in the total turnover. In the recent decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries & Ors. reported in [2014] 364 ITR 144 (SC) it has been held that sale proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961

ACIT vs. Micro Labs Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Controversy on whether s. 80-1A(9) mandates that the amount of profits allowed as deduction u/s 80-1A(1) has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking while computing deduction under any another provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 referred to larger Bench

While Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave took the view that the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax2 [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi) lays down the correct position in law and allowed the appeals of the Revenue, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra dissented and held that the law laid down by the Bombay High Court had in Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) lays down the correct position in law and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. In view of difference of opinion, the matters have been referred to a larger Bench

Jeyar Consultant & Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80HHC: It is a pre-requisite that there must be profits from the export business. If the exports business has suffered a loss, deduction cannot be allowed from domestic business

From the scheme of Section 80HHC, it is clear that deduction is to be provided under sub-section (1) thereof which is “in respect of profits retained for export business”. Therefore, in the first instance, it has to be satisfied that there are profits from the export business. That is the pre-requisite as held in IPCA and A.M. Moosa as well. Sub-section (3) comes into picture only for the purpose of computation of deduction. For such an eventuality, while computing the “total turnover”, one may apply the formula stated in clause (b) of subsection (3) of Section 80HHC. However, that would not mean that even if there are losses in the export business but the profits in respect of business carried out within India are more than the export losses, benefit under Section 80HHC would still be available

DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA/ 80HHC: Despite the introduction of 'block of assets' depreciation cannot be thrust on the assessee while computing quantum of eligible deduction

Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once depreciation is optional, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable or not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. Accordingly, for purposes of sections 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation not claimed for by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block of assets

CIT vs. Valiant Glass Works Pvt.Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80HHC: Deemed credit under the CENVAT Incentive Scheme is part of the business profits eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC

We agree with the submission of Ms Vissanjee that the said CENVAT incentive being the refund of tax and duty paid on inputs consumed for goods manufactured and exported would automatically reduce the cost of manufacture of the exported goods,

ACIT vs. M/s Northern Tannery (ITAT Lucknow)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Reopening of s. 143(1) assessment on the basis of the retrospective amendment of section 80HHC of the Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 is bad as the said amendment is struck doen in Avani Exports vs. CIT (Guj HC)

We find force in the contentions of the Revenue as the assessment order which was sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer was only an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and not a regular assessment under section

Top