Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2244 2009 SLD 2244 (2009) 308 ITR 445
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT Appeal No. 107 OF 2008 NOVEMBER 5, 2008
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND L.N. MITTAL, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Exporters Interest received from customers on belated payments is to be reduced from 'profits and gains of business' under clause (baa) of Explanation below section 80HHC(4B) [Assessment year 1997-98] [In favour of revenue] CIT v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 445 (Punj. & Har.) In view of the decision in CIT v. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. [2008] 302 ITR 53 (Punj. & Har.), interest received from customers on belated payments is to be reduced from 'profits and gains of business' under clause (baa) of the Explanation below section 80HHC(4B). Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Exporters Sales tax and excise duty were not includible in 'total turnover' [Assessment year 1997-98] [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 445 (Punj. & Har.) In view of the decision in CIT v. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. [2008] 302 ITR 53 (Punj. & Har.), sales tax and excise duty were not includible in total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Inter-Corporate Dividends CIT v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 445 (Punj. & Har.) In view of s of Supreme Court in Distribution (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 and CIT v. United General Trust Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 488, deduction under section 80M was to be allowed after allocating personal and administrative and financial expenses proportionately for computing net dividend income referred to in section 80AA [Assessment year 1997-98] [In favour of revenue]. Rajesh Sethi for the Appellant. Akshay Bhan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.- Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh, passed in I.T.A. No. 522/Chandi/2004, dated October 31, 2006, for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and law, the hon'ble Income-tax…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492