Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)

M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 3, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed. The Madras has reversed the judgement of the Special bench and held that relief u/s 80-IA should not be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief u/s 80-HHC.

Related Posts:

  • V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) Expressing again our anguish and pain on the same, we direct that in future, if any such concession is made by any Authorised Representative on behalf of the Assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit from Assessee and the counsel on behalf of the Assessee or atleast a written…
  • Sayarmull Surana vs. ITO (Madras High Court) The very edifice on which the prosecution was launched against the accused, has crumbled like a pack of cards. There was no necessity for the Income Tax Department to have launched the prosecution hurriedly since the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution has been excluded by…
  • Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) We reiterate that the fact finding Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits because the view and reasons given by such Tribunals are important for the Constitutional Higher Courts to look into while deciding the substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Act…
  • CIT vs. Shriram Ownership Trust (Madras High Court) The authority on examining the factual position found that the assessee has adopted a ingenious method for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of the Act by accepting the gift on behalf of the individuals thereby acting as a conduit. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not examine this aspect of the…
  • Mrs. Kannammal vs. ITO/ Jayanthi Seeman vs. PCIT (Madras High Court) The Circulars and Instructions as extracted above are in the nature of guidelines issued to assist the assessing authorities in the matter of grant of stay and cannot substitute or override the basic tenets to be followed in the consideration and disposal of stay petitions. The existence of a prima…
  • Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram vs. PCIT (Madras High Court) Before proceeding with any action, it is the duty of the assessing officer to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether, there is an undisclosed income under Section 2(11) and a duty is cast on the assessing officer to form an opinion, under Section 2(11). Expression, “undisclosed source of investment”…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Saumya Leasing (Bombay High Court) 

    Deduction under section 80M can be claimed even in respect of the interim dividend declared for the succeeding financial year before the due date.
  2. CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal (Bombay High Court) 

    As s. 192 requires the employer to deduct tax on the “estimated income” of the employee, the test is whether he acted in a bona fide and honest manner. Where the employer allowed the employees deduction under sections 10(5) and 10(14) only on the basis of declarations filed by…
  3. Idea Cellular vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Where all the material facts were placed before the AO and he raised questions thereon, Explanation 1 to s. 147 has no application. Further, the argument that because there was no discussion in the assessment order, the AO had not … Idea Cellular vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)…
  4. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    Non-compete compensation paid to an employee for an indefinite period is business expenditure and not capital expenditure as no capital asset or benefit of enduring benefit came into existence. While the lenght of the period of the covenant is important, it is not decisive. What is more important is…
  5. Saraya Industries vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) 

    Sections 153A and 153C are not unconstitutional either on the ground of discrimination or on the ground that they allegedly exclude the principles of natural justice.
0 comments on “M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)"
  1. archives » Blog Archive » Jashan Textile Mills vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) says:
    August 2, 2008 at 11:41 am

    […] under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed. The Madras has reversed the […]