CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd.

355 ITR 14High Court2013#1879 most cited

What is CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. authority for?

For Section 80IA and 80IB deductions, the profits of an eligible industrial undertaking or unit must be computed independently based on its actual profitability and market-rate inter-unit transactions, rather than applying a global profit margin of all the assessee's units.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. · Section 80IA deduction · Section 80IB deduction · unit-wise profit · global profit margin · inter-unit transactions · market rate · eligible unit profitability · deduction computation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32Section 40A(2)Section 43BSection 55(2)(aa)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 35acsection 80lasection 80ib(4)section 80lpreliminary expensessection 80ia(5)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(8)infrastructure facilityresulting company

Judgments citing CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd.

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The DCIT बनाम/ 12th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.CIT Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACR0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan…

Sjr Commodities and Consultancies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, second issue raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4548/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4548/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri S. Abhi Rama

…w without anything more. Similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate bench in Aquila Software Services Hyderabad (P) Ltd. (supra) and Pramukh International (supra). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 1 (Delhi HC) has emphasized on presence of justifiable reasons for invoking Section 80IA(8), (9) & (10). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Schmetz India (P) Ltd. (supra) has also observed that merely because an assessee makes an extraordinary profit, it would not lead to the ITA No. 4548/Mum/17 [M/s. SJR Commodities And Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Direct Information Private Ltd. vs. ITO: 349 ITR 150 and the following decisions of the Delhi High Court: - CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 - CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 - CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 251 CTR 290 In view of the above, it is submitted that since deduction under sections 80IA of the Act is a deduction admissible for a certain term, the question whether or not the statutory conditions precedent to the admissibility thereof (including the question separate books of accounts are…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1829/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

…ishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited company in the “Initial Year” and then only come to a conclusion on this issue. We draw strength for this proposition, from the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14(Del.) In the result this issue of allowability of u/s 80IE of the Act, is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication. 9.7. Ground No. 8 of the Revenue is on the issue of computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 9.7.1. The issue is the same as was dealt by us while disposing of Ground No. 4 of the revenue appea…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1750/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

…ishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited company in the “Initial Year” and then only come to a conclusion on this issue. We draw strength for this proposition, from the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14(Del.) In the result this issue of allowability of u/s 80IE of the Act, is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication. 9.7. Ground No. 8 of the Revenue is on the issue of computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 9.7.1. The issue is the same as was dealt by us while disposing of Ground No. 4 of the revenue appea…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1749/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

…ishnu Tea & Industries Private Limited company in the “Initial Year” and then only come to a conclusion on this issue. We draw strength for this proposition, from the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14(Del.) In the result this issue of allowability of u/s 80IE of the Act, is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication. 9.7. Ground No. 8 of the Revenue is on the issue of computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 9.7.1. The issue is the same as was dealt by us while disposing of Ground No. 4 of the revenue appea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Praveen Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2239/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav. Shri B.P. Jainand

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 40Section 43B

…ance was placed on following judgments: i) CIT v. Translam Ltd. 231 Taxman 901 (All) ii) CIT v. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Prakashan (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 210 (AT) affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Prakashan 355 ITR 1 iii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 67 SOT 110 (Ahd) iv) ACIT v. P.I. Industries 143 TTJ 353 (Jodh) v) ACIT v. Micro Turners ITA No. 4569/D/2011 dated 15.2.2013 13. The ld. CIT DR supported the stand of CIT(A) and submitted that allocation was fair and reasonable. She conceded that though books of accounts have not been rejected but the disa…

M/S Praveen Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav. Shri B.P. Jainand

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 40Section 43B

…ance was placed on following judgments: i) CIT v. Translam Ltd. 231 Taxman 901 (All) ii) CIT v. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Prakashan (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 210 (AT) affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Prakashan 355 ITR 1 iii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 67 SOT 110 (Ahd) iv) ACIT v. P.I. Industries 143 TTJ 353 (Jodh) v) ACIT v. Micro Turners ITA No. 4569/D/2011 dated 15.2.2013 13. The ld. CIT DR supported the stand of CIT(A) and submitted that allocation was fair and reasonable. She conceded that though books of accounts have not been rejected but the disa…

Mcleod Russel India Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 682/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6918 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…it was only in the financial year of substantial expansion that AO could make an investigation of the claims regarding substantial expansion, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. ACIT vs Delhi Press Patra Prakashan 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) 2. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical vs CIT 123 ITR 669 (Guj) 3. CIT vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. 216 ITR 548 (Bom) 16. The last submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the decision which the AO/CIT(A) rendered on deduction u/s 80IE of the Act in the case of Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd was contrary to the view taken by CIT(A)-…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e framed for the said years. It is submitted that the wrong claim made by the Assessee justified the re-opening ordered by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Revenue was placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Limited v. CIT (1994) 122 CTR 329 (Guj); CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 251 CTR 290 (Del); Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2014) 367 ITR 266 (Kar) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (decision of the Punjab and Haryana Hig…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e framed for the said years. It is submitted that the wrong claim made by the Assessee justified the re-opening ordered by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Revenue was placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Limited v. CIT (1994) 122 CTR 329 (Guj); CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 251 CTR 290 (Del); Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2014) 367 ITR 266 (Kar) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (decision of the Punjab and Haryana Hig…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e framed for the said years. It is submitted that the wrong claim made by the Assessee justified the re-opening ordered by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Revenue was placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Limited v. CIT (1994) 122 CTR 329 (Guj); CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 251 CTR 290 (Del); Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2014) 367 ITR 266 (Kar) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (decision of the Punjab and Haryana Hig…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…foresaid conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arisudana Spinning Mills vs ACIT (2012) 348 ITR 385 and another decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del.). Thus, there is merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, from this angle, we affirm the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.12. During hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee claimed that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted on the group on 21/09/2010, wherein, the assesse…

M/S. Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5565/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2009-10 Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-13(1), 10/46A, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco 4250B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 801Section 801BSection 80I

…lhi ‘E’ Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 following the order of assessment year 2007-08 and allowed the claim of the assessee for the relevant assessment year 2008-09. Following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Patra Prakash, 355 ITR 14 (Del) and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. Vs. CIT, 388 ITR 1 (SC) and the 5 relevant decision of ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench is reproduced hereinbelow: “We have already held while disposing off ITA No. 5304/D/2012 that order made u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 for AY 2.007-08 entitling t…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…td., 4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 (Bombay)/[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [327 ITR 570] [DELHI] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013]355 ITR 14 (Delhi)/[2013] 260 CTR 253 (Delhi) 7. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [11 CTR 139] [GUJARAT] 8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014]367 ITR 266 (Karnataka) 9 ITO vs. Smt. Urmila Bhandari [ITA Nos.766, 2593/Del/2013] 10 Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax v. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015]37 ITR…

Murphy Lighting, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal , CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR &
Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 878/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s. Murphy Lighting The ITO Vs. F-261, Road No. 13, VKI Area, Jaipur Ward- 4(3), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPFM 6384 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri P.C. Parwal , CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR & Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT –DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ D…

M/S. Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5566/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5566/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/46A, West Punujabi Bagh, Ward-13(4), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac)4250B Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca & Sh. P. K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80I

…The consequent effect of the aforesaid finding is that claim made u/s 80IA of the Act stands allowed in the initial assessment year 2007-08 in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Patra Prakash Ltd. 355 ITR 14 (Del.) has been pleased to consider to question as to whether the ITAT was right in holding that requisite conditions to be fulfilled for allowability of deduction u/s 80I ought to be satisfied, not only in the first or the initial year, but in all the assessment years in which the deduction u/s 80I is claimed by the assessee. The Hon’ble High Cou…

Sa Packaging, Delhi vs. CIT- XI, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated 30

ITA 2130/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi, M/S. Sa Packaging, C/O- Amit Sudershan & Associates, 907- New Delhi 908, 9Th Floor, Klj Tower North, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi Pan : Abhfs3629M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/02/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Original Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer On 25/08/2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.32,53,534/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Subsequently, The Commissioner Of Income Tax Examined The Assessment Records & Observed That The Assessee Did Not Manufacture Any Article Or Thing, Which Is A Prerequisite For Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ic Of The Act. Accordingly, He Issued A Notice

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…circular No. 15/2016 dated 19/05/2016 has notified the process of printing and publishing amounts to manufacture or production of article or things relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del). Accordingly, he prayed that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case as well as the circular issued by the 4 AY: 2009-10 CBDT in this regard, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 might be held invalid. 4. The Ld. CIT(DR) ,on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learn…

M/S Sa Packaging, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessment order dated

ITA 2519/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sa Packing, Vs. Cit, N-8/B, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Abhfs3629M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, Adv. Department By: Shri Bk Singh, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revisional Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed On 25.3.2013 Has Been Impugned By The Assessee.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri BK Singh, CIT( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…upreme Court in the case of India Cine Agencies v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 98 (SC). It was further contended that the above judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Delhi Press PatraPrakashan Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 14 (Del) where on similar facts it has been held that printing also included and to be considered as eligible for claiming deduction. It was also submitted that during the course of the proceedings before the learned CIT, the assessee has provided sufficient evidences to prove the process conducted by the assessee as a manufacturer. In this regard at…

M/S. Paswara Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 371/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…he hearing of the arguments, the ld. AR submitted that the issue of exemption had already been accepted in the earlier years and there was no change in the facts. The ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd [2013] 355 ITR 1 [Del], Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd Vs. ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 477 [Mad] and Amrit Fees Ltd Vs. ACIT 344 ITR 187 [Cal]. The ld. AR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in coming to a haste and arbitrary conclusion without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case 2 and the written submissions of the assessee plac…