5. Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

331 ITR 72High Court2011#20647 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 5. Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…Del/2012 dated 3.5.2016 4. WNS Global Services Pvt. ITA No. ITAT Mumbai Para 3.5.3-3.5.5 Ltd. v. ITO 4520/Mum/2013 dated 17.02.2016 Explanation 1 to section 10A(9) to apply only when exemption is claimed for first time 5. Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2011]331 ITR 72 Bombay High Court Para 10-16 15. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR reiterated the observations of authorities below in their respective orders and strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it…

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…Del/2012 dated 3.5.2016 4. WNS Global Services Pvt. ITA No. ITAT Mumbai Para 3.5.3-3.5.5 Ltd. v. ITO 4520/Mum/2013 dated 17.02.2016 Explanation 1 to section 10A(9) to apply only when exemption is claimed for first time 5. Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2011]331 ITR 72 Bombay High Court Para 10-16 15. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR reiterated the observations of authorities below in their respective orders and strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it…

INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6387/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…gued that, as the unit was established prior to 31.03.2000, the provision of S.10A(9) of the Act will not apply to its case. In support of this contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zycas Infotech P.Ltd. vs. CIT, 331 ITR 72. 4.3. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand strongly objected to the admission of additional evidences. He submitted that the evidences in question were not filed by the assessee, either before the AO or before the Ld.CIT(A), or before the ITAT for the A.Y. 2002-03, or before the AO or Ld.CIT(A) during the course of proceedings for the impugned A.Ys. It w…

INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6386/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…gued that, as the unit was established prior to 31.03.2000, the provision of S.10A(9) of the Act will not apply to its case. In support of this contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zycas Infotech P.Ltd. vs. CIT, 331 ITR 72. 4.3. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand strongly objected to the admission of additional evidences. He submitted that the evidences in question were not filed by the assessee, either before the AO or before the Ld.CIT(A), or before the ITAT for the A.Y. 2002-03, or before the AO or Ld.CIT(A) during the course of proceedings for the impugned A.Ys. It w…

5. Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (331 ITR 72) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax