{"id":4272,"date":"2012-02-08T09:35:37","date_gmt":"2012-02-08T09:35:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4272"},"modified":"2012-02-08T09:35:37","modified_gmt":"2012-02-08T09:35:37","slug":"al-kabeer-exports-ltd-vs-cit-supreme-court-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-pl-profits-not-normal-provisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/al-kabeer-exports-ltd-vs-cit-supreme-court-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-pl-profits-not-normal-provisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Al-Kabeer Exports Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=612\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=612&varname2=al_kabeer_80HHC_115JA.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (al_kabeer_80HHC_115JA.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nFor s. 115JA\/JB s. 80HHC deduction to be computed as per P&#038;L Profits &#038; not normal provisions<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In computing \u201cbook profits\u201d u\/s 155JA &#038; 115JB, the assessee claimed that the deduction admissible thereunder u\/s 80HHC had to be computed on the basis of the \u201cbook profits\u201d and not on the basis of the income computed under the normal provisions of the Act. This claim was upheld by the Tribunal by relying on the judgement of the Special Bench in <strong>DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations<\/strong> 106 ITD 193. On appeal by the Revenue, the High Court (233 CTR 443 (Bom)) reversed the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the High Court:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In view of this Court&#8217;s Order in the case of <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-bhari-information-tech-systems-supreme-court-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-pl-profits-not-normal-provisions\/\">CIT vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems<\/a><\/strong> upholding the judgment of the Special Bench of Tribunal in <strong>DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd<\/strong> 106 ITD 193, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgments of the ITAT in these cases stand affirmed. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-packworth-udyog-kerala-high-court-full-bench-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-normal-provisions-not-on-pl-profits\/\">CIT vs. Packworth Udyog<\/a><\/strong> 331 ITR 416 (Ker) (FB) is impliedly overruled\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In view of this Court&#8217;s Order in the case of <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-bhari-information-tech-systems-supreme-court-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-pl-profits-not-normal-provisions\/\">CIT vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems<\/a><\/strong> upholding the judgment of the Special Bench of Tribunal in <strong>DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd<\/strong> 106 ITD 193, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgments of the ITAT in these cases stand affirmed<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/al-kabeer-exports-ltd-vs-cit-supreme-court-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-pl-profits-not-normal-provisions\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4272\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}