Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2011 (8) TMI 307 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        High Court Upholds Expense Allocation Method for Public Limited Company, Emphasizes Turnover Percentage The High Court upheld the Assessing Officer's method of apportioning expenses based on turnover for a Public Limited Company's Hyderabad Unit, rejecting ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          High Court Upholds Expense Allocation Method for Public Limited Company, Emphasizes Turnover Percentage

                          The High Court upheld the Assessing Officer's method of apportioning expenses based on turnover for a Public Limited Company's Hyderabad Unit, rejecting the assessee's argument for a different allocation method. The Court emphasized the pooling of expenses at the Corporate Office post-merger and found the AO's formula appropriate, allocating expenses based on turnover percentage. The Court set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision and restored the AO's method, allowing the Revenue's appeal and stressing the importance of a consistent and evidence-based approach to expense allocation for computing deductions under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.




                          Issues involved:
                          1. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to re-compute the business profits of the Hyderabad Unit using the formula laid down by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Food Specialities Ltd.Rs.

                          Issue-wise detailed analysis:

                          1. Tribunal's Direction to Re-compute Business Profits:

                          The case revolves around the computation of business profits for the Hyderabad Unit of a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and packaged fast foods. The company claimed a deduction under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Hyderabad Unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted discrepancies in the expenses reported for the Hyderabad Unit, particularly in advertisement, sales promotion, and traveling expenses. The AO argued that the method used by the company resulted in an artificially high profit for the Hyderabad Unit, leading to a higher deduction claim under Section 80-I.

                          The AO adopted a formula for allocating expenses based on the percentage of the Hyderabad Unit's turnover to the total turnover of the Pharmaceutical Divisions. This allocation method was challenged by the assessee, who argued that the Hyderabad Unit had its own marketing setup and that the expenses should not be allocated based on turnover alone. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's method, stating that the expenses incurred by the Corporate Office for the Hyderabad Unit should be apportioned to ascertain its true profits.

                          The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the case and, while confirming the need for apportionment of expenses, remanded the matter back to the AO to determine the actual expenditure for apportionment. The ITAT's decision was based on a precedent set by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Food Specialities Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which involved apportioning increased overhead expenses between an old unit and a new unit based on turnover.

                          The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision, arguing that the Hyderabad Unit's expenses should be allocated based on the percentage of turnover, as no specific evidence was provided by the assessee to support a different method. The High Court examined the facts and concluded that the AO's method of apportioning expenses based on turnover was appropriate. The Court noted that the merger of the Hyderabad Unit with the assessee company in 1988 meant that the expenses should be pooled and accounted for at the Corporate Office.

                          The High Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the AO's formula, which allocated 38.77% of the total traveling expenses and field staff costs to the Hyderabad Unit based on its turnover percentage. The Court rejected the assessee's claim to use pre-merger expenses as a basis for apportionment, as it lacked supporting evidence. The Court also distinguished the present case from the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Food Specialities Ltd., stating that the merger had occurred years earlier, and the allocation method used by the AO was more appropriate.

                          In conclusion, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the AO's method of apportioning expenses based on turnover, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal. The Court emphasized the need for a consistent and evidence-based approach to expense allocation for the purpose of computing deductions under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found