CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

348 ITR 72High Court2012#1820 most cited

What is CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation, including unabsorbed depreciation, should not be reduced from the profits of an undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when computing the deduction amount.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. · Black & Veatch · Section 10A deduction · unabsorbed depreciation · consequential depreciation · profits eligible for deduction · computation of deduction · set off of depreciation · double benefit · Section 80IA · Bombay High Court 2012

Also reported as

251 CTR 265
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhesection 92f(v)section 35absection 92f(ii)section 80ia(1)section 80ia(5)section 10basection 35asubstance over formsection 92(1)section 42r&d expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Famy Care Private Limited (Formerly Known As Famy Care Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5984/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) Famy Care Pvt Ltd, Acit, Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Brady House, 12/14, Veer Nariman Road, V/S Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaacf 0632Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 70

…e reply dated 18th December 2014, making detailed submission. In the reply, the assessee stated that the deduction under section 10B and 10AA should be allowed without setting off any jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Limited (348 ITR 72) and submitted that the decision of judicial High Court will prevail upon the CBDT circular dated 28th August 2012. The assessee specifically contended that the loss of ineligible unit should not be set off against the income of eligible unit in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs Yokogava Ltd (341 ITR 385) and the Hon’b…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Firstsource Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4759/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Firstsource Solutions Income Tax Limited 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Mk Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Firstsource Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions Limited Tax 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W) Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ble for adjustment against the loss of non-STP units for the purpose of quantifying the claim of deduction under Sec.10AA is also supported by the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom). We thus 12 M/s. Firstsource Solutions Ltd., in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the lower authorities had erred in disallowing part of the assesses claim of deduction under Sec.10AA by wrongly aggregating the income and loss of various units while quantifying its entitlement towards deduction under Sec.10…

Elitecore Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1356/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…section 10A of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 72/208 Taxman 144/20 taxmann.com 727 as well as subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Schmetz India (P.) Ltd. [2012] 211 Taxman 59/26 taxmann.com 336, the Tribunal by impugned judgment has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and quashed the order passed by CIT (A) as well as that of the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling…

ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Praxis Interactive Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4637/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Praxis Interactive R.No.554, 5Th Floor Services Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 607/608, Multi Storied M.K.Road, Building, Seepz, Andheri Mumbai – 400 020 (E), Mumbai-400096 Pan/Gir No.Aaecp5196M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 72

…his predecessor for Asst Year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case in Appeal No. CIT(A)-17/IT-157/13-14 dated 9.5.2014 wherein by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting P Ltd reported in 348 ITR 72 (Bom) wherein it was held that section 10A is a deduction provision and not an exemption provision ; that section 10A benefit has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business ; that it is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 of the Act which deals with the carry forward and set off of bus…

Renfro India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1895/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1895/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Renfro India Pvt. Ltd. 609, Mahalaxmi Chabers 22, Bhulabhai Desai Raod ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 026 PAN – AAACK2518C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–10(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Mahaveer Jain Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing – 11.07.2019 Date of Order – 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 12(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2258/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodit(Tp)A. No.2258/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Firstsource Solutions Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Paradigm B, Income Tax, Circle- 12(2)(1), Mindspace New Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Malad (West), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K. Das, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…rough the relevant extracts of the consolidated order of the Tribunal for the aforementioned years. Apart there from, the ld. A.R also relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Beatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O loosing sight of the aforesaid settled position of law had erred in restricting the assesses entitlement towards deduction under Sec.10AA by setting off the losses of STP/Non-STP units by erroneously relying upon the CBDT Circular dated 16.07.2013. Further, the ld A.R submitted that as the A.O ha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Dhoke
Section 10A

…,031/- u/s 10A of the Act. The assessee had claimed deduction before setting off brought forward losses of eligible undertaking, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Veath Consulting (P) Ltd., reported as 348 ITR 72. The AO rejected 3 assessee’s claim of deduction. In first Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case. The ld.A.R. further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India L…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2071/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

For Appellant: Shri Amit Dua, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sharad Vaze
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 250Section 80A

…f the Act before setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 11. We find that this issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom) and the aforesaid deduction under section 10B of the Act is to be computed before adjusting brought forward unabsorbed losses / depreciation. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has pointed out that the issue stands covered by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2070/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

For Appellant: Shri Amit Dua, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sharad Vaze
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 250Section 80A

…f the Act before setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 11. We find that this issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom) and the aforesaid deduction under section 10B of the Act is to be computed before adjusting brought forward unabsorbed losses / depreciation. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has pointed out that the issue stands covered by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 2…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.(TP)A. No. 1547/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.(TP)A. No. 2733/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.(TP)A. No. 5842/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT(Large Taxpayer Unit)-2 M/s. Reliance World Trade Centre 1 Vs. Industries limited 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade Maker Chambers IV Mumbai-400 005. 3rd Floor, 222 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(TP)A. No. 1280/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.(TP)A. No. 2414/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.(TP)A. No.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Cummins Research & Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2073/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2073/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 10ASection 115J

…rein the said section has been amended and the deduction now is allowable to the assessee as against the said income being exempt in the earlier years. The issue is settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- "The deduction under s. 10A, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of s.72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporatin…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Uni Design Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4341/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit, Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Uni Design Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai Ltd., Plot No.4,5,6, Uni Design Seepz, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu0572G Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. Jenardhanan Revenue By Shri Rakesh Mohan Date Of Hearing 20/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 43(5)Section 70

…on revolves around whether deduction u/s.10A is allowable before giving effect to provisions of Section 70 & 71 of the IT Act. This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 72 (2012) (Bom) where Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under: 7 M/s. Uni Design Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., ''The deduction under section 10A, in our view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry for…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra ( R &D Services) Ltd (Now Merged With Tech Mahindra Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: S/Shri Kartik Natarajan, H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: S/Shri Jayant Kumar, Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K” Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं अमरजीत अमरजीत "सह "सह,, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं अमरजीत अमरजीत "सह "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member & Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.I.T.A. No. 2392/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Icici Onesource Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2658/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 154

…loss and allowed deduction u/s 10A. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 32. We heard the parties on this issue. This issue has since been decided in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Black & Veatch Consulting P Ltd (348 ITR 72) and by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (391 ITR 274). Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 10A of the Act without setting off of loss from non-STP units. 33. In Ground No.8, the assessee contends that the Ld CIT(A) should have directed the AO…

ACIT, CIT-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bnk E Solution Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1613/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(1)Section 72

…arefully considered the various issues emanating from the arguments of the Ld AO and the Ld A,R,I find that the point under consideration has been squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in CIT Vs Black & Veatch Consulting (Pvt Ltd) 348 ITR 72 as well as the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd [2112] 204 Taxman 305, alo 341 ITR 385 ( 2012) . It is quite well laid down that the various High Courts and Hon'ble Tribunals have held that deduction under Sec 10A has to be given effect at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business before applying the provisi…

ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Medusind Solutions India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6918/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 10A

…off of brought forward business loss of earlier years. The learned CIT(A) agreed with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly, by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (348 ITR 72) and also decision rendered in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 6703/Mum/2010 dated 5.12.2010, allowed deduction u/s 10A without setting off of the brought forward business losses. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing learned AR submitted that the decision rendered by the Coordin…

Lavino Kapur Cottons P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3619/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Vs. Ito – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0824C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 70Section 71

…Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v/s D.C.I.T 325 ITR 103. (iii) C.l.T v/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. 374 ITR 520. c) That the C.LT.(A) has erred in relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T v/s Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72 (Born) to deny the claim of the appellant company. d) That the issue involved in Black & Veatch's case was entirely different and the C.LT (A) has clearly misdirected himself. e) That the only issue involved in Black & Veatch's case was whether deduction u/s 10A of the Act is allowable in respect of income of allowable unit under Section 10A befor…

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4602/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं, राम लाल नेगी, "याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. DCIT, -8(1) (Formerly known as Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known as Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony IT Park, 8th, 9th & 10th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road,…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4469/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं, राम लाल नेगी, "याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. DCIT, -8(1) (Formerly known as Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known as Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony IT Park, 8th, 9th & 10th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road,…

ITO 2(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Mobiapps India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5211/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

Section 10ASection 263

…ent, the said loss is disallowed, the same will enhance profits of eligible undertaking by Rs.22,36,163/-, which in any case is exempt u/s 10A of the Act, keeping in view decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72 (Bom.), CIT vs Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 211 taxman 59 (Bom.) and decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Techno Tarp and Polymers Pvt. Ltd (INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2134 OF 2013 vide order 23 dated 5/12/2015 ). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Techno Tarp & Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has duly considered the decision…