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.

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & CO 76/MUM/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACH2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-40002…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2025/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2025/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 222, Advait Complex, Nr. Circle-2(1)(2), Sandesh Press Road, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAECK2595B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R. Date of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…ving direct nexus over the export sales of the assessee and would be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8.7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. Reported in 330 ITR 175 (Bom). 8.8. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedence relied upon hereinabove, ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Next issue to decided in this appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of customer discount of Rs. 28,04,22,899/-…

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…ving direct nexus over the export sales of the assessee and would be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8.7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. Reported in 330 ITR 175 (Bom). 8.8. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedence relied upon hereinabove, ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Next issue to decided in this appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of customer discount of Rs. 28,04,22,899/-…

Shivashree Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tumkur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 234Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…f the assessee by Rs.10 lakhs. As such, the increased resultant business income to be considered while granting deduction u/s 80P of the Act in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 175 (Mum), wherein held as under: “That it was an admitted position that the assessee had deposited both the employer’s and the employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESIC, though beyond the due date including the grace period. The Assessing Officer added these payments to the total income of the assessee. The disallowance which was effe…

M/S. Ampar Co-Operative Agriculture Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 796/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

M/S. Ampar Co-Operative Agriculture Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 795/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co- Operative Society Limited, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Solapur

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 713/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P

…consider the allowability of deduction u/s 10A based on enhanced business income/profits, in the case of ‘CIT ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 7 Solapur DCC Bank Employees Co-op Society Ltd., ITA No.713/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.’ reported in 330 ITR 175 (Bom) wherein vide para 11 their lordships have categorically answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as; Re Question b : 11. For the purposes of the appeal it is necessary to refer to the admitted position which is that the assessee had deposited both the employer’s and the employees’ contribution towards Providen…

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld

ITA 6256/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Acit Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh Kapadia Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. K.C. Kanojia- Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tech Mahindra Limited, C/o Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 PAN: AAACM3484F ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent ACIT Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/o Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 PAN: AAACM3484F ..... Respondent…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…e u/s.40(a)(ia)in the paragraphs herein above. The Ld.AR seeks deduction of the said amount u/s. 10AA as a consequence of the disallowance. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 and CBDT Circular No. 37 of 2016 dated 2.11.2016 in support of this contention. The Ld.St.Counsel relied on the orders passed by authorities below. 19.2. We note that the submissions of assessee deserves to be considered and the claim has to be considered in accordance with law. In our opinion there is no statutory provision to that effect having…

Sharavathi Pathina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 152/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 151/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 150/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 250

…law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude receipts from Other Services amounting to Rs.7,00,48,008 from total turnover following interalia the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GemPlus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 175 without appreciating that the Department has not accepted the said decision and filed a SLP to the Supreme Court. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer not o set-off of losses of its two 10A units from the profits of other 10A units while computing deduction u/s. 1…

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 250

…law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude receipts from Other Services amounting to Rs.7,00,48,008 from total turnover following interalia the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GemPlus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 175 without appreciating that the Department has not accepted the said decision and filed a SLP to the Supreme Court. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer not o set-off of losses of its two 10A units from the profits of other 10A units while computing deduction u/s. 1…

Technicolor India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 217/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, D.R
Section 10A

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of `Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,' [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: "13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Technicolor India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 300/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, D.R
Section 10A

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of `Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,' [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: "13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case…

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 719/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of `Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,' [20111 330 ITR 175 [Born] , wherein it is held thus: "13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited /2009] 319 II 'R 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present…

Tesco Bangalore Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2492/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of `Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,' [20111 330 ITR 175 [Born] , wherein it is held thus: "13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited /2009] 319 II 'R 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present…

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ITA No.147/Bang/2020 M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Syngene International Limited Plot No.2&3, Bommasandra Industrial Area IV Phase, JCIT Special Range 6 Jigani Link Road Vs. Bangalore Bommasandra Bangalore 560 099. PAN NO : AABCS9936M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R…