JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Specifically, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and remanded the issue of deduction under Section 42 to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per DRP directions.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the orders of the Assessing Officer concerning assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The appeals raised multiple grounds related to disallowance of deductions, depreciation, and credit for taxes.
What were the issues?
Key issues involved the eligibility for deductions under Section 80IB and Section 42, the correct calculation of depreciation, and the grant of TDS credit and MAT credit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80IB,Section 32,Section 42,Section 115JAA,Section 234D,Section 234B,Section 143(3),Section 92CA,Section 144C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing284 ITR 323 · 2006 · SC
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT1,695 citing193 ITR 321 · 1992 · SC
- CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.935 citing358 ITR 295 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.540 citing348 ITR 302 · 2012 · SC
- CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.422 citing345 ITR 241 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- Badridas Daga v. CIT181 citing34 ITR 10 · 1958 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.111 citing292 CTR 393 · 2017 · HC
- DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital59 citing300 ITR 75 · 2008 · HC
- Niko Resources Ltd. v. Union of India40 citing374 ITR 369 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT33 citing349 ITR 250 · 2012 · HC
- Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT29 citing443 ITR 250 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd.22 citing305 ITR 75 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- Promotion and Trading Ltd V/s CIT, 423 ITR510 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd.20 citing423 ITR 542 · 2020 · HC
- Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. v. DCIT18 citing90 Taxmann.com 125 · 2018 · ITAT
- Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT17 citing89 Taxmann.com 339 · 2018 · ITAT
- CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co.15 citing50 ITR 233 · 1963 · HC
- Niko Resources Ltd. v. ACIT14 citing395 ITR 301 · 2017 · HC
- ACIT v. Niko Resources Ltd.12 citing123 TTJ 310 · 2009 · ITAT
- Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT6 citing76 Taxmann.com 328 · 2016 · ITAT
- Frigoglass India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT5 citing68 Taxmann.com 370 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Global One India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT5 citing194 ITD 676 · 2020 · ITAT
- PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd.4 citing144 ITD 397 · 2013 · ITAT
- 126 Taxmann.com 2773 citing126 Taxmann.com 277 · 2021
- 193 ITD 7283 citing193 ITD 728 · 2022 · ITAT
- ACIT v. Oil India Ltd.3 citing179 ITD 455 · 2019 · ITAT
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. DCIT3 citing133 Taxmann.com 500 · 2021
- Cairn India Ltd. v. DIT3 citing300 CTR 366 · 2018 · HC
- CIT v. A.T. Kearney Ltd.3 citing165 Taxmann.com 494 · 2024
- Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT3 citing189 ITD 420 · 2021 · ITAT
- Olympus Medical Systems (P) Ltd. v. ACIT3 citing117 Taxmann.com 363 · 2020
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
These three appeals filed are against the order dated 04-02- 2022 & 28-04-2022 passed by ACIT (Int. Taxn)-1, for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:-
ITA No. 80/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18
“Your Appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Int. Taxn. 1), Ahmedabad (hereafter referred to as "AO"), u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax
I.T.A Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-1
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Joshi Technologies International Inc India… vs The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), AhmedabadAhmedabad12 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Niko Resources Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Specifically, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and remanded the issue of deduction under Section 42 to the Assessing Officer...
- Oil India Ltd., Dibrugarh vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Guwahati26 Aug 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Niko Resources Ltd.
The Tribunal held that crude oil production amounts to 'production' for the purpose of Section 80IC(2)(b) and that the assessee is engaged in a 'mineral based industry'. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's eligib...
- M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India… vs JCIT (International Taxation), DehradunDelhi18 Jul 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Niko Resources Ltd.
The Tribunal restored the issue of additional depreciation to the AO for verification and allowed the claim if eligible. It also directed the AO not to charge interest u/s 234B on income subject to TDS and to compute int...
- Nitesh Dutt Jha, Madhubani vs ITO, Ward- 3 (5), MadhubaniPatna7 Oct 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Niko Resources Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal found that at both assessment stages (AO and CIT(A)), proper representation was not made by the assessee. While the Department's representative supported remanding the matter, the Tribunal decided to set asi...
- Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Mumbai1 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the disallowance of franchisee fees (Ground No. 5), the Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17. Therefore, the...
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026