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.

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 233/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…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 cas…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 705/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.705/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Circle – 3(1)(2), Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru. (Formerly Known Symphony Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Plot No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Sy. No.85 & 86, Sadaramangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan: Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.705/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, M/s. Harman Connected Services Vs. Circle – 3(1)(2), Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru. (formerly known Symphony Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Plot No.3 and 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area, Sy. No.85 and 86, Sadaramangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN: AABCG 5658 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meen…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2020/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2019/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2005/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2004/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2003/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 259/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 242/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2105/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2003/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2004/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2005/Chny/2016 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.259/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. 96. The DRP vide its directions dated 16.11.2015, allowed objections filed by the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the communication expenses both from export turnover as well as the total turnover. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 97. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that this issue is no longer res integra and has been deci…

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., [formerly known as The Additional American Power Commissioner of Conversion (India) Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.] LTU, 187/3 & 188/3, Jigani, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 106. PAN: AACCA6398Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT DR (OSD) Date of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 ORDER PER BE…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Lab India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

…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 Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

…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. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 2639/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2639/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner #165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Magnum, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bennerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assesee Has Raised 36 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal. However, Learned Ar Had Argued Only Following Six Issues:-

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…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 cas…

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner Income Tax (A) Bangalore-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 683/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…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…

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner Income Tax (A) Bangalore-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…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…

NA vs. Andesh Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 4 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3239/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Navsandesh Sahakari Patpedhi Income Tax Officer, Maryadit, Chawl No. 13/2,3,4, Vs. Ward-21(2)(4), N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Room No. 109, First Floor, Mumbai – 400 013 Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aadfn6130H (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik, A.R Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

…on the CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, dated 02.11.2016. Also, support was drawn by him from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developer (P) Ltd. (2012) 254 CTR 127 (Bom) and CIT Vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 330 ITR 175 (Bom). On a perusal of the CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, dated 02.11.2016, we find that the same reads as under: “Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act”), provides for deductions in respect of certain incomes. In computing the profits and gains of a business activity, the Assessing Officer may make certain disallowances, such as disall…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Heal Kraft India Pvt. Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3537/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…that the Tribunal had also considered the issue of deductibility of enhanced profit on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s.80IC of the Act and by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 175 held that enhanced profit on account of disallowance of expenses is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. 7. The ld.DR on the other hand submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IC of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there is no nexus between sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee and business a…

Healkraft Pharma India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Corporate Range- 2, Chennai

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

ITA 3345/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…that the Tribunal had also considered the issue of deductibility of enhanced profit on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s.80IC of the Act and by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 175 held that enhanced profit on account of disallowance of expenses is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. 7. The ld.DR on the other hand submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IC of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there is no nexus between sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee and business a…