CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

330 ITR 175High Court2011#436 most cited

What is CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. authority for?

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

207

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. · Section 10A deduction · Section 10AA deduction · business profits · enhanced profits · disallowances · PF ESI contributions · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · foreign exchange fluctuations · export sales · disallowance u/s 14A

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 192

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 10AASection 115JBSection 263Section 127
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10asection 10aacomputer softwaresection 40(a)(i)section 80iassociated enterprisessection 40(a)associated enterprisesection 10section 40international transactionsection 43

Judgments citing CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Perfect Enginering Products Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3997/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year:-2009-10 Dcit-8(2), M/S Perfect Engineering Room No.209/216A, Products Ltd. बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, 31, Golden Beach, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Ruiya Park, Juhu, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aabcp6180E (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) 2 C.O. No.197/Mum/2015 M/S Perf Ect Engineering Products Ltd.

Section 115JSection 32Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…ugned order by contending that the deduction was allowed to the assessee after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer and placed reliance upon the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.(2011) 330 ITR 175(Bom.) by claiming that the amount is from sale 8 C.O. No.197/Mum/2015 M/s Perf ect Engineering Products Ltd. proceeds and bill discounting, therefore, it has been derived from industrial undertaking. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the remand report from the Assessing Off…

DCIT Cir. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Metro Exporters P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2094/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

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

For Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar (DR)
Section 147Section 14ASection 28Section 3Section 37(1)Section 80H

…on (b) is concerned, counsel for the parries state that this, issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/so Gem Plus Jewellery India Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 (see page 183). In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (b)·” Thus, keeping in view the order of jurisdictional High Court, in assessee’s case for AY 2003-04, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue have no merit, hence, the same are dismissed. 14. Next ground of appeal i.e. Ground No.3 is in respect of deduction from prof…

M/S. Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2026/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

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

For Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar (DR)
Section 147Section 14ASection 28Section 3Section 37(1)Section 80H

…on (b) is concerned, counsel for the parries state that this, issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/so Gem Plus Jewellery India Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 (see page 183). In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (b)·” Thus, keeping in view the order of jurisdictional High Court, in assessee’s case for AY 2003-04, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue have no merit, hence, the same are dismissed. 14. Next ground of appeal i.e. Ground No.3 is in respect of deduction from prof…

M/S Trilogy E- Business Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

…in following the judgements rendered in the context of section 80HHC in interpreting section 10A when the principle underlying both these provisions is one and the same”. 16.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. 330 ITR 175, in identical circumstances, held that since the export turnover forms part of the total turnover, if an item is excluded from the export turnover, the same should also be reduced from the total turnover to maintain parity between numerator 51 IT(TP)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 and denominator while calculating deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The rele…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Net Devices India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as C

ITA 1099/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 10ASection 80HSection 92C(2)

…in following the judgements rendered in the context of section 80HHC in interpreting section 10A when the principle underlying both these provisions is one and the same”. 5.2 The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. 330 ITR 175, in identical circumstances, held that since the export turnover forms part of the total turnover, if an item is excluded from the export turnover, the same should also be reduced from the total turnover to maintain parity between numerator and denominator while calculating deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Mumbai…

M/S. Lsi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…349 ITR 98 [Karn], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “10. The Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'total turnover' in the context of Section 10-A, in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 175 [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bom.). Interpreting sub-Section (4) of Section 10-A, it is held as under: Export turnover in Profits of the Profits derived from respect of the business of the X export of articles or articles or things or undertaking = things or Computer computer software software Total turnover of the business carried on by the undertakin…

M/S. Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1303/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 253(1)(d)

…in following the judgements rendered in the context of section 80HHC in interpreting section 10A when the principle underlying both these provisions is one and the same”. 3.2 The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. 330 ITR 175, in identical circumstances, held that since the export turnover forms part of the total turnover, if an item is excluded from the export turnover, the same should also be reduced 6 I T (T.P) A No.1303/Bang/2010 from the total turnover to maintain parity between numerator and denominator while calculating deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The releva…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Software Ag Bangalore Technologies P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed

ITA 1628/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoge & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10A

…349 ITR 49 [Karn], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “10. The Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'total turnover' in the context of Section 10- A, in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 175 [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bom.). Interpreting sub-Section (4) of Section 10-A, it is held as under: Export turnover in Profits of the Profits derived from respect of the articles or business of the X export of articles or things or computer undertaking = things or Computer software software Total turnover of the business carried on by the undertakin…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoge & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 10A

…349 ITR 49 [Karn], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “10. The Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'total turnover' in the context of Section 10-A, in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 175 [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bom.). Interpreting sub-Section (4) of Section 10-A, it is held as under: "Under sub-section (4) the proportion between the export turnover in respect of the articles or things, or, as the case may be, computer software exported, to the total turnover of the business carried over by the under-taking is applied to the profi…

DCIT vs. M/S Amba Research (India) Pvt. Ltd

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 622/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 115J

…me is rightly treated as part of operating income. The above principle is upheld in the following cases: i. CISCO Systems (India) P. Ltd., IT(TP)A No. 271/Bang/2014; ii. SAP Labs India P. Ltd., [44 SOT 156 (Bang)]; and iii. CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India [330 ITR 175 (Mum)]. The Revenue’s ground is accordingly rejected. 9. Ground Nos. 10 & 11 is on the issue of exclusion of Telecommunication Charges for export turnover and total turnover. AO excluded the Telecommunications charges and Travelling charges from estimated turnover. Ld.CIT(A) following the Co-ordinate Bench decision has directed the AO to excl…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Sri. Siraj Salim Dhanani, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 591/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoge & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1O

…as under:- IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2015 & CO No.94/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 33 “10. The Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'total turnover' in the context of Section 10-A, in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 175 [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bom.). Interpreting sub-Section (4) of Section 10-A, it is held as under: "Under sub-section (4) the proportion between the export turnover in respect of the articles or things, or, as the case may be, computer software exported, to the total turnover of the business carried over by the under-taking is applied to the profi…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Atos Origin India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan KaushalFor Respondent: Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala
Section 10ASection 10BSection 144C(3)Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, " केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“K”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1778 /Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ATOS India Private Ltd. Addl. CIT, Range-8(1), Godrej & Boyce Complex Vs. Mumbai. Plant 5, Pirojshanagar , LBS Marg Vikhroli (West),Mumbai-400 079. PAN No.AAACO 2461…

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1778/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan KaushalFor Respondent: Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala
Section 10ASection 10BSection 144C(3)Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, " केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“K”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1778 /Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ATOS India Private Ltd. Addl. CIT, Range-8(1), Godrej & Boyce Complex Vs. Mumbai. Plant 5, Pirojshanagar , LBS Marg Vikhroli (West),Mumbai-400 079. PAN No.AAACO 2461…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Chavali S. Narayan, CA
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 80H

…ns Pvt.Ltd. Page 13 of 18 provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 15. The learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, rendered in a similar context, in the case of CIT vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd (330 ITR 175). He pointed out that the Honourable Bombay High Court held that "..in the present case, it cannot be disputed that the net consequence of the disallowance of the employer's and employee's contribution is that the business profits have to that extent been enhanced. There was, as we have already noted, an add-back by the Assessing Officer to the i…

Ness Technology (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

ITA 7016/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Chand
Section 10Section 10ASection 144C(5)Section 154Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ering the question, the Hon’ble Court held as under: “2.Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question stands answered against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India ltd. Reported in [2011] 330 ITR 175 (Bom). In this view of the matter, we see no ITA/7016/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” We find that on 25.09.2012, while deciding the appeal No. 584 of 2012, the Hon’ble High Court had taken the similar view. As that i…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1719/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1719/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.70/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay Vs. Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Manjunatha R Swamy : ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Vyas सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.148 Of The It Act. 2. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. In This Case, The Assessment Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 On 6-3-

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas
Section 10ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. ITa (22 SOT 26) ITAT 'A' Bench, Hyderabad. 3 & CO No.70/2013 (iv) Changepond Technologies (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (22 SOT 220), ITAT 'A' Bench Chennai. (v) OCIT vs Softsollndia Ltd. (22 SOT 271) ITAT 'A' Bench, Hyderabad. (vi) CIT v Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175) Bombay High Court. (vii) Rajoo Engineers Ltd. v DCIT (218 CTR 53) Gujarat High Court. 4. Attention was drawn to documents in the Paper Book to the fact;- (i) That the notice u/s.148 is dated 06.03.2009 signed by Shri Bharat B. Garg, ACIT-2(3), Mumbai, (ii) 'The AO, Shri K. R. Iyengar, DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vide letter dated 25.08.2009 sent the attes…

ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 290/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…tion of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the total turnover in the denominator and the export turnover in the numerator have to be read in the same manner. For this reliance has been placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.”, 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) ii) “M/s. Microchiop Technology Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.1161/Bang/2007 (Bang.) iii) “M/s. Alternative Food Process P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No.52/Bang/2008 (Bang.) iv) “M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, ITA No.58/Bang/2008 (Bang.) v) “M/s. Hewiett Packard Global Soft Ltd.” IT No.333/Bang/208 (Bang) vi) “ACIT vs. I…

Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7415/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…tion of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the total turnover in the denominator and the export turnover in the numerator have to be read in the same manner. For this reliance has been placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.”, 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) ii) “M/s. Microchiop Technology Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.1161/Bang/2007 (Bang.) iii) “M/s. Alternative Food Process P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No.52/Bang/2008 (Bang.) iv) “M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, ITA No.58/Bang/2008 (Bang.) v) “M/s. Hewiett Packard Global Soft Ltd.” IT No.333/Bang/208 (Bang) vi) “ACIT vs. I…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 668/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…tion of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the total turnover in the denominator and the export turnover in the numerator have to be read in the same manner. For this reliance has been placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.”, 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) ii) “M/s. Microchiop Technology Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.1161/Bang/2007 (Bang.) iii) “M/s. Alternative Food Process P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No.52/Bang/2008 (Bang.) iv) “M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, ITA No.58/Bang/2008 (Bang.) v) “M/s. Hewiett Packard Global Soft Ltd.” IT No.333/Bang/208 (Bang) vi) “ACIT vs. I…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…tion of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the total turnover in the denominator and the export turnover in the numerator have to be read in the same manner. For this reliance has been placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.”, 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) ii) “M/s. Microchiop Technology Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.1161/Bang/2007 (Bang.) iii) “M/s. Alternative Food Process P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No.52/Bang/2008 (Bang.) iv) “M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, ITA No.58/Bang/2008 (Bang.) v) “M/s. Hewiett Packard Global Soft Ltd.” IT No.333/Bang/208 (Bang) vi) “ACIT vs. I…