Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 3443 2006 SLD 3443 (2006) 282 ITR 547
Bombay High Court
IT APPEAL No. 215 OF 2002 AUGUST 23, 2004
R. M. LODHA AND, J. P. DEVADHAR, 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.

Parle Biscuits Ltd.*

Law:

Section:

Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Investment deposit account - Whether when business of assessee did not fall under type of business enumerated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 32AB(2), its income from interest, rent, dividend and profit on sale of tooth paste would fall within meaning of 'eligible business' in relation to deduction under section 32AB - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal held that income earned by the assessee from interest, rent, dividend and profit on sale of toothpaste was to be included in the eligible profits for working out deduction allowable under section 32AB. On revenue's appeal : HELD The Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 observed that as per the definition of term 'eligible business' defined under sub-section (2) of section 32AB, all business of an assessee-company will be an eligible business unless it falls under the type of business enumerated in sub-clause (a) and (b) of section 32AB(2). In the instant case, the revenue did not venture to demonstrate that the business of the assessee fell under the type of business enumerated in sub-clauses (a) and (b ) of section 32AB(2). Accordingly, the Tribunal's view relating to deduction under section 32AB with regard to income from interest, rent, dividend and profit on sale of toothpaste that they fall within the meaning of 'eligible business' could not be faulted. EDITOR'S NOTE In view of the of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 275, the Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made to the closing stock of the assessee on account of Modvat credit. Note : The case was decided in favour of the assessee. CASE REVIEW CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC) and Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC)followed and relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Appollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC). K.R. Chaudhary, Vijay Kantharia and H.D. Rathod for the Appellant. F.B. Andhyarujina andMs. R.M. Sidhwa for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Heard. In the appeal two substantial questions of law have been proposed. The said questions read thus : "1. Whether, on the facts and…
🔒
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