Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188Supreme Court of India1992#272 most cited

What is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

289

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bajaj Tempo v. CIT · liberal interpretation · incentive provisions · economic growth · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · Section 80IA · Section 80HHC · deduction provisions · tax exemptions · purposive construction

Also reported as

62 Taxmann 4803 SCC 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 80IASection 143(1)Section 80HHCSection 139(1)Section 80IBSection 10BSection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)section 80hhsection 80ia(4)section 80hhcdeduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iatax benefitadditional depreciationsection 80iasection 80asection 80i

Judgments citing Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…erstand the facts and circumstances of the present case in true letter and spirit and has framed the assessment on his own whims and fancies, which is not sustainable in law. xi) Case Laws i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) have held that a provision in the taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) have held that existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts are not decisiv…

Ibm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3464/BANG/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2000-2001 M/s. IBM Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle – 11(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, CA Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 08-05-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee company is in the business of export of…

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

…t, the play-in-the- joints is allowed to the Legislature and the liberal interpretation of the exemption provisions to make a purposive interpretation, was also propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- [1] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- “5. .......Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it. But that turned out to be the, unintended, consequence of construing the cl…

Jayaraman Jayasudha, Chennai vs. JCIT, Nusiness Range III(I/C), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 41/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jayaraman Jayasudha, The Jt. Commissioner Of 20/6, Easwari Apartment Vs. Income Tax, Beach Home Avenue, Business Range-Iii (I/C), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 090. [Pan: Ahjpj-4767-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 : 14.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 54F

…v. Polar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) reported in 226 ITR 625 / 92 Taxman 541 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. 3.1 The Appellant relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 / 62 Taxman 480 wherein it was held that the provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She is the wife of Mr. A. Kamaraj, the associate editor of Nakheeran, a Tamil Investigative Magazine. An enquiry…

Bharat Engineering Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 905/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bharat Engineering The Assistant Commissioner Of Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1A, Jhaver Plaza,6Th Floor, Corporate Circle -1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, No. 121, Nungambakkam High Chennai – 600 034. Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaccb-8705-G] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 80Section 8O

…laimed by it. 6. The Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Members of the ITAT, C-Bench in their decision in the case of M/s. R.R.Constructions, Chennai in ITA No.2061/Mds/2010 have observed that "the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CIT 196 ITR 188 has ordained that taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be liberally construed". The Hon'ble Members of the ITAT, in the above case, after considering the various judgments have held that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in all…

Ajr Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-41 (Presently With D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2622/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 2330/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2620/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 2621/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 2622/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1329/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) AJR Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Room No. 655 Infrastructure Projects Ltd.) 6th Floor 3rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Aayakar Bhavan Hamilton House, J.N. M.K. Road Heradia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-40 020. Estate, Mumbai-400 038. PAN…

Ajr Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-41 (Presently With D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2621/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 2330/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2620/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 2621/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 2622/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1329/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) AJR Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Room No. 655 Infrastructure Projects Ltd.) 6th Floor 3rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Aayakar Bhavan Hamilton House, J.N. M.K. Road Heradia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-40 020. Estate, Mumbai-400 038. PAN…

Ajr Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-41 (Presently With D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 2330/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2620/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 2621/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 2622/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1329/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) AJR Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Room No. 655 Infrastructure Projects Ltd.) 6th Floor 3rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Aayakar Bhavan Hamilton House, J.N. M.K. Road Heradia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-40 020. Estate, Mumbai-400 038. PAN…

Ajr Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd)., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-41 (Presently With D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2619/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 2330/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2620/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 2621/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 2622/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1329/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) AJR Infra and Tolling Limited (Formerly Gammon Room No. 655 Infrastructure Projects Ltd.) 6th Floor 3rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Aayakar Bhavan Hamilton House, J.N. M.K. Road Heradia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-40 020. Estate, Mumbai-400 038. PAN…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2032/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not e…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2031/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not e…

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. H K Designs (India) LLP, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10A

…1 ITA 2050/Mum/2023 H.K. Designs (India) LLP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2050/Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2012-13) The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs M/s H.K. Designs (India) LLP Room No.601, Piramal Chambers Unit 113, SDF IV, SEEPS-SEZ, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 096 Mumbai-400 012 PAN : AAEFH0962N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Nitesh Joshi z/w Shri Ashwin Kashinath Present for the Department Shri Biswanath Das – CIT DR Date of hearing 20…

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Syntel Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1972/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-3(2)(1), Syntel Private Limited, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Unit No. 112 Sdf Iv, Seepz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri East Mumbai-400096. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 8305 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 80A(5)

…n the following cases: interpretation, was also propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- I] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay V I] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, [(1992) 3 SCC 78], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: [(1992) 3 SCC 78], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: [(1992) 3 SCC 78], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:- “5. … ..Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth “5. … ..Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth “5. … ..Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Exide Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 135Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37

…as claimed in the subsequent financial year, i.e. financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim. 8. We observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Bajaj Tempo Limited (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) has held that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally and the sections pertaining to incentives, exemptions and deductions where the spirit is to promote exports, increase earnings in foreign convertible exchange, promote industrialization, infrastructure developm…

Dempo Industries Private Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 131/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Ms Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…new plant & machinery. Therefore these provisions are to be interpreted fairly and liberally to promote the intention of the legislature. In interpreting the aforestated clause (iia) (supra) liberally we place reliance on ‘Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT’ reported in 3 SCC 78 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court laid that the beneficial provisions intended for promoting economic growth to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it. In nutshell, we allow the ground raised for claim of additional depreciation. 7. In result, the appe…

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Dbs Technology Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 151/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…year of the operations and also in the second year/ then in the third year same cannot be withdrawn by examining the factors which were required to be seen in the first year of the claim. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited Vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC), the formative conditions in connection with the setup of the SEZ unit needs to be tested only in the year of formation i.e., in the present case AY 2017-18. In this case though the claim u/s 10AA has been allowed u/s 143(1) in the 1st year i.e. 2017-18 but subsequently vide order u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2019, the same has been disallowed. Bu…

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…ome reason or other. b. Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs.” 18. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited (196 ITR 188) where Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that provisions giving incentive for growth and development should be interpreted liberally and the restriction on exemption should be construed so as to advance objective and not to frustrate it. The exact findings of the Hon’ble court are as under: ‘Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth h…

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the legislature's intention was to cover organisations like Konkan Railway, Delhi Metro Corporation, etc. There is no such specific mention in the Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT 156 ITR 188(SC). 16.10 Regarding maintenance of separate books of account, the appellant submitted that there is no such condition for grant of tax holiday benefit. Although separate books of account are not maintained, profit of the eligible business has been computed based on the memorandum books of account and other details maintained by the appellant. Th…