How many judgments cite CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (348 ITR 72), spanning 2012 to 2025.

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.

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 80hhe section 92f(v)section 35ab section 92f(ii)section 80ia(1)section 80ia(5)section 10ba section 35a substance over form section 92(1)section 42 r&d expenditure

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

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…ons of chapter-VIA in the context of deduction, which is allowable u/s 10A of the Act is not permissible unless a specific statutory provision, to that effect, is made. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72, CIT vs Schmetz India (P.) Ltd. and Indus Infotech Servies (2014) 45 taxman.com 34 (Guj.). The ld. counsel further contended that in earlier assessment year, the submissions of the assessee were not considered and in spite of that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee, whereas, in the present Assessment Year, the submissions of the asses…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

ITO 8(2)2, Mumbai vs. Kiara Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5040/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5040/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) I.T.O. – 8(2)-2, M/S Kiara Jewellery Pvt. बनाम/ R. No. 212/216A, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 180, 1St Floor, M.K. Road, Sdf Vi, Mumbai – 400 020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aacck4789M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Dhondial

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 70Section 71Section 72

…A 5040/Mum/2014 7 It was submitted that in the case of CIT v. Techno Tarp Polymers Private Limited(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting P. Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 72 (Bom) and held that brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit are not to be set off against the current year profits of the eligible unit while computing deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws cited by bo…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Asb International P. Ltd, Ambernath

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7034/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Bora

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 72

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 and 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 and 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s ASB International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., v. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1st Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, MIDC Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN :AAACA8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Bora…

Prexus Health India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2975/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2011-12 Prexus Health India (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle- 20(1), Ra-4 (Shop), Inder Puri, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi – 110 012. Pan : Aadcp 7893 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Puri, CAFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 28Section 44CSection 5

…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 5 and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporat…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5270/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 5270/Del/2012 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Income Tax Officer Evaluesserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 701, Guru Apartments, Ward-11(2),Room No. 321, Sector-14, Rohini, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Gir / Pan : Aace8014F (Respondent) & Co No. 462/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5270/Del/2012) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Evaluesserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 701, Guru Apartments, Vs. Ward-11(2), New Delhi Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi Gir/Pan:Aace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2016 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: 1. The Present Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/07/2012 Passed By Ld.Cit (A)-20, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Department Appeal Following Grounds Have Been Raised.

For Appellant: Mr. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10A

…Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 325 ITR 102, while dealing with provisions of section 10 B of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 72 has held as under: “The submission of the revenue placed its reliance on the literal reading of section 10 A under which a deduction of such profit and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years is to be allowed from the total income of the asse…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Cenvo Publisher Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1476/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.W. Angolkar (DR)

Section 10ASection 253Section 70Section 71Section 72

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1476/Mum/2015 for (Assessment Year : 2010-11) ITO-9(2)(2) M/s Cenvo Publisher Services Ltd. Room No. 601A, 6th Floor, (Formerly known as Knowledge Works Global Limited) 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Marwah Centre, Krishanlal Marwah Marg, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072. PAN: AACCK0612M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri C.W. Angolkar (DR) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta (AR) Date of hearing : 09.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 18.1…

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Health Prime Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Dcit, Range 8(2), R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Health Prime Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 303, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093 Pan: Aabch 3697Q .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohhamed RizwanFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 37(1)Section 43A

…venue is in appeal before us. 9. At the time of hearing, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the said controversy is now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT VS Black And Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom), which is further affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Techno Trap and Polymers Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.2134 of 2013, dated 5th December, 2015. 10. In so far as the stand of the Revenue is concerned, the same is to the effect that though section 10A of the Act forms part of Chapter-III of the Act, but it being a deducti…

Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1311/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri D.Prabhakar Reddy

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…ct is not a part of Chapter VI of the Act and, therefore, the set-ff of loss would not take precedence. In particular, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS Black And Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom) and also the following decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal:- (i) G.Jewelcraft Ltd. v. ITO, 56Taxmann.com 192(Mum-Trib) (ii) Rave Technologies (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT,41 CCH 267 (Mum Trib) 9 6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has defended the orders of the authorities below and in particular reliance has been…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14Section 1OSection 70Section 71Section 72

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) D.C.I.T. -10(1)(1), M/s. Hexaware Technologies R. No.209, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. बनाम/ M.K. Road, 152, Millenium Business Park, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sector-3, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400 710. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCA 3202F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Arvind Kumar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10/10/2016 Dat…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5980/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 1Section 10ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…thus has come in appeal before us on this issue. 41. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee, at the outset, has stated that this issue is squarely covered with the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance and thus the brought forward unabsorbed losses cannot be set off against current profit of the section 10A eligible unit for computing the inc…

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mecano (I) Pltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…uction claimed u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) is an exemption, thus do not form part of the total income and further the learned CIT(A) not following the direction contained in the order of CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72 (Bom.), Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs DCIT 325 ITR 102 and CIT vs Galaxy Surfacatants Ltd. 343 ITR 108 and circular number 07/DV/2013 dated 16-07-2013 . 2. During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri Abhishek Sharma advanced identical arguments as contained in the grounds, raised by the Revenue. The crux of the argument is in support to denial of deduction and co…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…hus has come in appeal before us on this issue. 41. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee, at the outset, has stated that this issue is squarely covered with the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance and thus the brought forward unabsorbed losses cannot be set off against current profit of the section 10A eligible unit for computing the inc…

ITO 8(2)4, Mumbai vs. Pharmaceutical Research Association India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 1643/M/2014 and ITA No

ITA 1643/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1643/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Ito 8(2)(4), M/S Pharmaceutical Research Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Association India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd., Kamdar Shopping Centre, Office No.5,V.S. Khandekar Marg, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1644/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Ito 8(2)(4), M/S Pharmaceutical Research Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Association India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd., Kamdar Shopping Centre, Office No.5,V.S. Khandekar Marg, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.685/Mum/2013,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 M/S Sterling Synergy System Pvt.Ltd. Dcit 8(3), (Now Known As M/S Pharmaceutical Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Research Associates India Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Mumbai-400020 Office No.1, 1St Floor, Rang Bhavan, M.G.Cross Road, Near Bank Of Baroda,Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1726/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 M/S Pharmaceutical Research Dcit 8(3), Associates India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Vs Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd.), Office No.1, 1St Floor, Rang Bhavan, M.G.Cross Road, Near Bank Of Baroda,Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R

Section 10B

…Authority (FAA), thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT vide Appeal No. 3097/M/2007 and the matter was restored to the file of CIT(A) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (251 CTR 265), Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT (325 ITR 102) while restoring the case, it was further observed that loss in eligible unit cannot be set off against the profit of not eligible unit. However, in relation to section 80HHC the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shirke Construction Ltd. (292 ITR 380) have held that brought forward losses has to be a…

J.P Morgan Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 477/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…balance taxable income if any. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these issues are now well settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS Black And Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom). 14. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 15. We have carefully perused the facts of the vase vis-a- vis decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). The question before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was – “whether on the facts and in the circumstan…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Tehcno Tarp & Polymers P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4980/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh.BharatVyas & Shri Devang Divecha - ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Sachidanand Dubey-DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, “ई ” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“E”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.4980/Mum/2013 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-8(3)(3) M/s. Techno Tarp & Polymers Room No.202 Pvt. Ltd.B-310, Everest Grande, 3rd Floor,Mahakali Caves Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Coster India Packaging Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1740/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raodcit, Coster India Packaging Circle-3(1), Pvt. Ltd, Vs. New Delhi 3/138, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Pan:Aafcs6667R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Aruna Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10A

…the profit for the purpose of deduction under section 10A (also 10AA) should be allowed without setting off unabsorbed loss and depreciation. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by directing the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.32,93,879/-. He allowed to carry forward and set off against the subsequent year by following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court High Court as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court (su…

J.P. Morgan Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7822/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 J.P. Morgan Services P. Ltd., Dcit (Osd)-8(1) Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai- बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Chakala Junction, Andheri(E) Mumba-400093 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

J.P . Morgan Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8987/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2005-06 Pan : Aaacr4849R M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Range 2(3), Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By:Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Respondent By:Sh. N.K. Chand, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2015 Order Per A.D. Jain, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Chand, CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 30Section 40Section 70Section 90Section 91

…aws: “i) “Hindustan Unilever Ltd.”, 325 ITR 102 (Bom. HC) ii) “Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.”, 343 ITR 108 (Bom. HC) iii) Assessee’s Own case being “Yokogawa India Ltd. and other connected appeals”, 341 ITR 385 (Kar. HC) iv) “Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.”, 348 ITR 72 (Bom., HC) v) “Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd.”, 2 ITR (T) 66 (Chennai Tribunal – SB) vi) “Sovika Infotech Limited v. ITO”, 23STO 271 (Mum. ITAT) vii) “Mindtree Consulting Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, (102 TTJ 691) (Bang.ITAT) 17 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 viii) “A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Ltd.”, (ITA No.1021/Mad/2008) (Chennai ITAT). i…