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.

DCIT8(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4999/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year 2003-04 The Dcit 8(2), Vs. M/S. Lionbridge Technologies Room No.209, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Spectra Building Park, 5Th & 6Th Floor, Hiranandani Mumbai 400 020 Business Park, High Street, Powai, Mumbai -76. (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R.A. Dhyani Respondent By : Shri J.D.Mistry Date Of Hearing 29/10/2015 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2015 Order Per Beena Pillai, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri R.A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri J.D.Mistry
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 1OSection 263

…required to be excluded from the export turnover in terms of Explanation 2(iv) of section 10A are also required to he excluded from the total turnover in terms of the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd 330 ITR 175. without appreciating that the Department has filed an SLP in respect of the said decision. 5 The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored 2. The brief facts of the case as recorded by the ld.AO are as under. The assessee is engaged in the business of development and export of…

TAX – 21 vs. Universal Precision Screws

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/392/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015
Section 10ASection 10B

…inless Steel Industries (supra). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue. 7. As regards the exchange rate fluctuation, the ITAT referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) which held that foreign exchange fluctuations realized within the stipulated period forms part of the sale proceeds and is directly related to the export activates. It was, accordingly, held that this should be treated as income derived from export activities. The above decision of the Bombay High Court was in the context of Section…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Offshore Analytics India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 10ASection 1OSection 40

…Per contra, Ld. AR submitted that in the case of Bearing Point Business (supra), this Tribunal had considered this issue and allowed such claim relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gemplus Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd [(2010) 330 ITR 175]. 06. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. This Tribunal in the case of Bearing Point Business (supra) has held as under at paras 4 to 9.4 of its order : 4. It was submitted by the learned AR in the course of hearing of this M.P that the assessee has filed elaborate written submissions with regard to grant of deduction u…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Inautix Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2625/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2277/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…eligible undertaking(s)/unit(s) for purpose of sections 10A of the Act.’’ I.T.A.Nos.2277 &2625/Mds/14 :- 14 -: 9. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd 330 ITR 175, wherein it was held that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s.10A with reference to addition or disallowance of various payments, as the plain consequence of the disallowance and add back made by the Assessing Officer is an increase in the business profits of the assessee and the same to be considered for the purpose of computation of dedu…

Inautix Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2277/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2277/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…eligible undertaking(s)/unit(s) for purpose of sections 10A of the Act.’’ I.T.A.Nos.2277 &2625/Mds/14 :- 14 -: 9. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd 330 ITR 175, wherein it was held that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s.10A with reference to addition or disallowance of various payments, as the plain consequence of the disallowance and add back made by the Assessing Officer is an increase in the business profits of the assessee and the same to be considered for the purpose of computation of dedu…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Canara Hotel and

RP/351/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…ith regard to fourth substantial question of law, it is pointed out that the same has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by a judgment of High Court of Bombay in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD.', 330 ITR 175. The aforesaid submission also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 6. For the reasons assigned in the aforementioned judgments, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same f…

CIT vs. Ramsons Organics Ltd

ITA - 72 / 2012HC Delhi07 Feb 2012
Section 10Section 10ASection 10B

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 72/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel . versus . . . RAMSONS ORGANICS LTD ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 07.02.2012 . . . Ld. counsel for the Revenue in this appeal, which pertains to assessment year 2007-08, submits that the exchange rate fluctuation had resulted in enhanced income and the Assessing Office…