SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 836

S. H. KAPADIA, K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN
Ajanta Pharma Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.H. KAPADIA, CJI Leave granted.

2. Assessee was a MAT company at the relevant time. On 30.10.2001, it filed its return of income for assessment year 2001-02. The said return was accompanied by statutory audit report claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act"). While computing the "book profits" under Section 115- JB of the 1961 Act, the assessee claimed reduction, under clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115JB, of 100% export profits. Vide assessment order dated 27.2.2004 the AO allowed only 80% of the export profits in terms of Section 80HHC(1B), as being allowed for reduction of "book profits" under clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115JB of the 1961 Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee moved before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 30.7.2004, the CIT(A) held that 100% export profits earned by the assessee as computed under Section 80HHC(3) was eligible for reduction under clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115JB. This order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal which took the view that the amount of profit eligible for deduction would not be governed by Section 80HHC(1B) since there is no reference











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top