Bang) 5 ITR (Trib) 96, WIPRO Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT, Bang)

1 ITR (Trib) 326Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#21735 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Bang) 5 ITR (Trib) 96, WIPRO Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT, Bang)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10B

…CIT Vs. Jewellery Solutions International (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mumbai) 28 SOT 405, inteilinet Technologies India P Page 12 of 16 Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Bang) 5 ITR (Trib) 96, WIPRO Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Bang) 34 DTR 493 and Global Vantedge P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT, Del) 1 ITR (Trib) 326 etc. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the DRP. 24. The DRP at page 64 of the order had considered the submissions made by the assessee and in para 23 has recorded the reasons as under: 23.We have duly considered the facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and the draft assessment order.…

M/S. Synergy Electric Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 1526/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…esentative’s case before me is that the said co- ordinate bench’s decision has not considered hon'ble apex court’s judgment in CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 255 (SC) and this Tribunal’s Special Bench in Global Vantedge P Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 326 (Del) I find that the co- ordinate bench has gone by hon'ble apex court’s decision (supra) in accepting ITA No.1526/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s Synergy Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-12(3), Kol Page 3 assessee’s case hereinabove. The Revenue’s arguments supporting both the lower authorities’ action is declined therefore. 4. This assessee’s app…

Al-Azi Polymers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Al-Azi Polymers, The Asst. Commissioner 1 Net Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Ward 21(3), Andheri East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Aagfa4589A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 2(20)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. AL-AZI Polymers, The Asst. Commissioner 1 Net Industrial Estate, of Income Tax, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Ward 21(3), Andheri East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 072 PAN: AAGFA4589A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by th…