Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

STEWART HOLL (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX, KOLKATA – II

2015 (5) TMI 789 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Deduction under Section 33AB - income from tea purchased by the appellant and blended with the tea, manufactured by it - whether AO's order applying claim as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - revision u/s 263 - Held that:- As decided in Goodricke Group Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (No.1) reported in [2011 (4) TMI 863 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the assessee has utilized his entire tea grown by it in its garden and by blending the same with some other amount of tea purchased .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rison to the final product is only a device to get the benefit of the section.

In the case before us, assesse submitted that the quantity purchased from outside is 11%. By using the expression ‘trifling’ what did the Division Bench mean is not very clear to us but 11% is also in a sense nominal compared to balance 89% which was admittedly grown and manufactured by the assessee himself. - Decided in favour of assesse. - ITA 442 of 2004 - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - IRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND RIN .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer and the Assessment Order dated March 27, 2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 was not in accordance with the provisions of the said section and the said order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thereby upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 ? ii) Whether and in any event and on a true and proper interpretation of section 33AB of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that income from tea purch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s contentions in that behalf and as highlighted in the appellant s letter dated March 12, 2003 filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax ? iv) Whether in respect of one and the same activity the income can be subjected to two different provisions and treated as loss under one and profit under the other ?" Mr.Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the question nos. (i) and (ii) are already covered by a judgement of this Court in the case of Goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version