<?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>1997 (9) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5752</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether profits earned by an assessee from sale of goods manufactured using imported palm oil could be treated as &quot;profits and gains derived from export&quot; to claim the benefit under s. 2(5)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1962. The SC held that business income must be computed under ss. 28-43C of the Income-tax Act and that the requisite nexus requires the export itself to be the proximate source of profit. Here, the immediate source was the domestic sale of manufactured goods; the earlier export merely enabled import entitlements and was too remote in the causal chain. The claim for the allowance was rejected and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5752</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether profits earned by an assessee from sale of goods manufactured using imported palm oil could be treated as &quot;profits and gains derived from export&quot; to claim the benefit under s. 2(5)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1962. The SC held that business income must be computed under ss. 28-43C of the Income-tax Act and that the requisite nexus requires the export itself to be the proximate source of profit. Here, the immediate source was the domestic sale of manufactured goods; the earlier export merely enabled import entitlements and was too remote in the causal chain. The claim for the allowance was rejected and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>