Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

20 Taxmann.com 43High Court2012#12366 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lamda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…rate item of income. It doesn’t mean that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction with respect to the notice pay. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT Delhibench in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 20 Taxmann.com 43 wherein it was held that notice pay received/receivable from the employee is an income derived from eligible undertaking for the purpose of the section 10A of the Act. 25.1 Similarly, we also note that miscellaneous income represents the settlement of the advances given by the assessee to its employees. In other words such income also repr…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 4754/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Circle 2, Vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 19BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle 2, vs. M/s. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon. (PAN : AACCS5323F) M/s. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. (PAN : AACCS5323F) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Shri Rakesh Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2019 Date of Order : 15.04.2019…

Siemens Power Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 4751/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Circle 2, Vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 19BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle 2, vs. M/s. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon. (PAN : AACCS5323F) M/s. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. (PAN : AACCS5323F) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Shri Rakesh Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2019 Date of Order : 15.04.2019…

Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (20 Taxmann.com 43) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax