<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (8) TMI 1388 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175557</link>
    <description>Deduction under s. 80-I turned on whether various receipts were &quot;derived from&quot; an industrial undertaking. Duty drawback under s. 75(1) Customs Act and refunds from transporters/insurers were held to have a direct nexus with manufacturing operations and were includible in eligible profits; CIT(A) was upheld. Sale proceeds of import entitlements, CCS, and IPR reimbursements were traced to Government schemes rather than the undertaking, applying SC&#039;s &quot;derived from&quot; test, and were excluded; CIT(A) was reversed. Foreign exchange difference was remanded to the AO to determine whether it arose in the revenue field (then includible) or capital field (then excludible). Sales-tax refund was excluded for failure to discharge the onus of proving eligibility; AO restored. Addition from change in stock valuation was deleted since bona fide method change could not disturb opening stock; CIT(A) upheld. Revenue appeal partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1388 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175557</link>
      <description>Deduction under s. 80-I turned on whether various receipts were &quot;derived from&quot; an industrial undertaking. Duty drawback under s. 75(1) Customs Act and refunds from transporters/insurers were held to have a direct nexus with manufacturing operations and were includible in eligible profits; CIT(A) was upheld. Sale proceeds of import entitlements, CCS, and IPR reimbursements were traced to Government schemes rather than the undertaking, applying SC&#039;s &quot;derived from&quot; test, and were excluded; CIT(A) was reversed. Foreign exchange difference was remanded to the AO to determine whether it arose in the revenue field (then includible) or capital field (then excludible). Sales-tax refund was excluded for failure to discharge the onus of proving eligibility; AO restored. Addition from change in stock valuation was deleted since bona fide method change could not disturb opening stock; CIT(A) upheld. Revenue appeal partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>