What is 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) v. ITO ( authority for?

Units eligible for Section 10B exemption need not have their losses carried forward separately; these losses can be set off against normal taxable income.

How many judgments cite 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) v. ITO (?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) v. ITO ( (129 TTJ 273), spanning 2015 to 2023.

1. Lason India (Vetri Software) v. ITO ( (129 TTJ 273)

DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S Asb International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…in adjusting the brought forward losses of earlier years before arriving at the gross total income, for allowing a deduction under Section 10B. In appeal, the Tribunal has relied upon a decision of its Special Bench in the case of Scientific Atlanta Vs. ACIT 129 TTJ 273. in which it has been P a g e | 11 ITA No. 1541/Mum/2023 & CO No. 65/Mum/2023 AY 2009-10 ASSB International Pvt. Ltd. emphasized that the provision contained in Section 10A is not an exemption but a deduction under Chapter III. Following that decision, the Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A in respect of the allowable unit under…

Loxim Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1564/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 250

…3.2013 in Tax Appeal No. 831 of 2012, The appellant also relied on the following judgments:- - CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd,(2012) 348 ITR 0072(Bombay). - CIT vs. Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 036 (Delhi). - Scientific Atlanta Vs ACIT 129 TTJ 273 (Bombay ITAT Special Branch) - ACIT vs Yokagava India Ltd (2007) 111 TTJ 548 After considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant. It is seen that the as mentioned above also the AO allowed deduction u/s. 10B of the Act based on CBDT Circular F.No. 279/Misc./M-116/2012-ITJ date…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 115J

…. v. CIT v) 213 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v. Tyresoles Concessionaries Pvt. Ltd. vi) 212 ITR 1 (Bom) CIT v. Dandeli Ferro Alloy (P) Ltd.. vii) 160 ITD 540 (Asr) Aggarwal & Co. v. DCIT viii) 391 ITR 274 (SC) CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (pages 443-444 of Paper Book) ix) 129 TTJ 273 (Chennai) Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 40. So far as the various allegations/observations made by the AO are concerned, the ld. Counsel strongly challenged the same. So far as the observation that it is the first year that claim of deduction in respect of Noida SEZ and Nagpur SEZ is concerned, the ld. Counsel drew the att…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…de Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal i…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…de Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal i…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…de Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal i…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…de Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal i…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

…de Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal i…