CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.

88 Taxmann.com 69Supreme Court of India2017#1885 most cited

What is CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. authority for?

Each assessment year constitutes a separate unit of assessment under the Income-tax Act, and findings or decisions for one assessment year do not operate as res judicata for subsequent assessment years.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. · Ace Multi Axes · assessment year unit · separate assessment year · res judicata income tax · doctrine of mutuality · prior assessment year · Section 147 · assessment procedure · Income-tax Act

Also reported as

400 ITR 141252 Taxmann 274

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 69CSection 115JBSection 133ASection 147Section 40A(2)(b)Section 151Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 250ofsection 43(b)doctrine of mutualitysection 3(b)section 40a(2)(a)section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)actual payment basissection 43b(b)section 34(1)full and true disclosureinitial assessment year

Judgments citing CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 and 2011-12 IBM India Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner 12, Subramanya Arcade, of Income-tax Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Vs. Circle -3(1)(1) 560 029. Bangalore PAN NO :AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT (TP) A. No.1228/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of IBM India (P) Ltd, Income tax, Circle- No.12, Subramanya 3(1)(1) Arcade -1, Vs. Bangalore Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore-560…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…ons 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this sub-section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub-section.‖ 54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DCIT v/s ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd., [2018] 400 ITR 141 (SC) while dealing with the issue of eligibility of deduction under section 80IB of the Act has observed as under:– Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ITA No. 17/Mum./2011 ITA no.1650/Mum./2016 ITA no.1054/Mum./2016 ―No doubt, certain qualifications are required only in the initial assessment year, e.g. requirements of initial constitution of the u…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32A

…to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and exemption notification. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements [2005] 1 SCC 368 (Para 24) as highlighted in Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. 400 ITR 141 (SC) [Para 20, Pg 10-11 DPB] CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DISTINGUISHABLE: Assesee's Reliance Distinguished in Bajaj Tempo Ltd, 196 ITR 188 (SC) Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. 400 ITR 141 (SC) Pg 7-12 DPB CIT Vs. Strawboard Manufacturing Tata Sons Ltd. Co. Ltd 177 ITR 431 (SC) P.434 104ITD45(Mum)TM Pg 13-17 DPB CIT Vs. Arcot Distt. Co-op.…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/141/2020HC Karnataka21 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 2Section 206ASection 40Section 80J

…I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ I.T.A. No.141 OF 2020 C/W I.T.A. No.151 OF 2020 IN I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, 7TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND,ADVOCATE-PH) AND: TE…

The Commissioner vs. M/S Gopalan Enterprises

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/3/2015HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been 7 placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE Vs. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.' 400 ITR 141 (SC) AND 'RAMNATH & CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 885 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was granted approval by Government of India for setting up industrial park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and under the aforesaid proposal, 4 units were to be set up…

Pr.Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/571/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…upreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in Section 10B of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal ha…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/559/2015HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…upreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in Section 10B of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal ha…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…upreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in Section 10B of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal ha…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2013HC Karnataka18 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10(2)(ii)Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.57 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., NO.19, SHRUTHA COMPLEX PRIMROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR.…

The Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/S. Mahaveer Marvel

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/13/2013HC Karnataka02 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…t of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decisions of Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-19, MUMBAI VS. SARKAR BUILDERS’, (2010) 57 TAXMANN.COM 313 (SC), ‘DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.’, (2018) 400 ITR 141 (SC) and ‘RAMNATH & CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- 8 TAX’, (2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 885 (SC) as well as the form of completion certificate as prescribed under bye law 5.6.1 of the bye laws framed by the BBMP. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an order so…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…uld be in a position to file documents as far as possible to co-relate invoices with SOFTEX forms. C.8.2. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DCIT vs ACE Multi Axis systems Ltd., reported in (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 69. Ld.Standing 31 IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 Counsel by relying on this decision, proposed that, eligibility/satisfaction under the section 10A/10AA has to be established every year by assessee for claiming deduction. On perusal of the decision, it is noted that the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is in the context of…

Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 35A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव,ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ ITA No. 1865/PUN/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( formerly known as Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase-III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. PAN : AABCM 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pun…

Shree Pushkar Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5388/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Shree Puskhar Chemicals Dcit 7(2) & Fertilisers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 202-A Wing, Mumbai V. Building No. 3, Rahul Mittal Industrial Estate, Sir M V Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs9372E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5388/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.06.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-14/It-108/2012-13, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 09.01.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi (DR)
Section 11BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 80I

…appeal was called for hearing. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue is no more res-integra as Hon’ble Supreme Court has already adjudicated this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd., reported in (2018) 400 ITR 141(SC). Thus ,it was prayed by learned DR that since investment in Plant & Machinery is more than threshold limits as prescribed for small scale industrial undertaking, deductions u/s. 80IB(3) of the 1961 Act cannot be allowed. The learned DR also drew our attention to provisions of Section 80IB(14)(g) of the 1961 Act. It was also submitted by learn…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1257/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Sh. J.D, Mistry, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: S/sh. Bhupendra Kumar Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 35

…initial year in which the undertaking or enterprise was formed. In order to drive home his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT-Circle 11(1), Banglore, Vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 141 (SC). The ld. A.R taking us through the relevant observations of the court which though were rendered in context of Sec. 80IB, submitted, that it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that certain qualifications for claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB were required only in the initial assessment year viz. (i) requirement of initial constitution o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

WTA/3/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been 7 placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE Vs. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.' 400 ITR 141 (SC) AND 'RAMNATH & CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 885 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was granted approval by Government of India for setting up industrial park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and under the aforesaid proposal, 4 units were to be set up…

Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.1381/PUN/2003 अपील िन…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.1381/PUN/2003 अपील िन…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Hical Aerospace Private Limted

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

COP/3/2015HC Karnataka18 Sept 2015

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been 7 placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE Vs. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.' 400 ITR 141 (SC) AND 'RAMNATH & CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 885 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was granted approval by Government of India for setting up industrial park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and under the aforesaid proposal, 4 units were to be set up…