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.

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…e for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee is relying upon following decisions. 29. In this connection, reliance is first placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175),(Refer Page No. 224 – 230 of Paperbook for Case Laws). One of the issues for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was: “(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption under section 10A of the Act on the assessed income, which was en…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1178/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…e for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee is relying upon following decisions. 29. In this connection, reliance is first placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175),(Refer Page No. 224 – 230 of Paperbook for Case Laws). One of the issues for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was: “(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption under section 10A of the Act on the assessed income, which was en…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1177/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…e for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee is relying upon following decisions. 29. In this connection, reliance is first placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175),(Refer Page No. 224 – 230 of Paperbook for Case Laws). One of the issues for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was: “(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption under section 10A of the Act on the assessed income, which was en…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-4, Bangalore vs. M/S Mphasis Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3418/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…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…

Lotus Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2207/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2207/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013 – 14

For Appellant: Shri. Chavli Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2207/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013 – 14 Lotus Labs Private Limited., Deputy Commissioner of O7, Jasma Bhavan Road, Income Tax Circle – 4(1)(1), Millers Tank Bed Area, Bengalore. Opp. Gurunanak Bhavan, Vs. Vasanthnagar, Bengalore-560 052. PAN – AAACL5328D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Chavli Narayan, CA Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13-05-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDIC…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Yahoo Software Development Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 2510/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

…ssessing Officer has not considered the enhanced income for granting deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The CIT(A) granted the deduction by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. [(2010) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.)]. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the Act with reference to the…

Income-Tax Officer, Haveri vs. M/S.Mahalaxmi Urban Co-Op Society Ltd., Haveri

ITA 133/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

…ssessing Officer has not considered the enhanced income for granting deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The CIT(A) granted the deduction by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. [(2010) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.)]. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the Act with reference to the…

Yash Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2305/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhyash Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Vs Acit-11(3)(2), Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Unit No. 603 & 604, Block No.1, Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Bhawan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Mumbai-400096 Pan : Aaacy2834 R Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10ASection 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92Section 92C

…that it cannot sit in the judgement over the issue relating to the future years. 21. The Coordinate bench of Tribunal, in Dania Ore Jewellery Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (supra), while referring the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in Gems and Jewellery India Ltd (330 ITR 175 Bom) passed the following order; – “We find that the issue before us, including the unrealized export turnover has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Neeru Jewels P. Ltd.(supra)as under: "3.Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee company is engaged in business of manufacturing and export of…

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…e learned AR also cited following decisions to defend the position of the assessee that gain/loss derived from forward contracts entered into by the assessee engaged in export activity should be eligible for deduction:- • CIT vs. Gem Plus Jeweller India Ltd. 330 ITR 175 • PCIT vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. 101 taxmann.316 (Bom) • CIT vs. Symantee Software India (P) Ltd. (Bom) In view of the above, the learned AR prayed that the AO’s approach in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and as has been held in the above judgments by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the AO be directed to follow consistency…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…e learned AR also cited following decisions to defend the position of the assessee that gain/loss derived from forward contracts entered into by the assessee engaged in export activity should be eligible for deduction:- • CIT vs. Gem Plus Jeweller India Ltd. 330 ITR 175 • PCIT vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. 101 taxmann.316 (Bom) • CIT vs. Symantee Software India (P) Ltd. (Bom) In view of the above, the learned AR prayed that the AO’s approach in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and as has been held in the above judgments by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the AO be directed to follow consistency…

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

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

ITA 1305/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1305/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Income Tax Officer, Design Pvt. Ltd., Ward–12(1), #132/133, West Wing, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bengaluru. Domlur Post, Off Old Airport Road, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaacm 9437 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2007-08, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This Appeal Was Already Decided By The Tribunal As Per Its Order Dated 29.09.2020 & Thereafter, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Petition (Mp) & As Per The Mp No.63/Bang/2019 Dated 01.11.2019, This Tribunal Order Was Recalled By The Tribunal For A Limited Purpose For Adjudicating Additional Grounds Of Appeal. Hence, Now We Have To Decide Only The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1305/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2007-08 M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Income Tax Officer, Design Pvt. Ltd., Ward–12(1), #132/133, West Wing, 2nd Floor, Vs. Bengaluru. Domlur Post, Off Old Airport Road, Bengaluru – 560 037. PAN : AAACM 9437 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 24.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Ga…

24/7 Customer Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn in respect of transfer pricing issues

ITA 689/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 689/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12 M/S. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prestige Tech Platina – 2, Tax, Survey Nos. 32/1, 32/2, 34/1, Ward 2 (1) (1), 34/2, 34/3, 34/4, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bmtc Building, Varthur Hobli, Outer Ring Vs. Koramangala, Road Between Sarjapur & Bangalore – 560 047. Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 087. Pan No : Aaacz1014A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A 591/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12

For Appellant: Shri. Sumit LovaniwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT - DR
Section 10Section 2Section 36

…ame has to be reduced from the element of export turnover present in the total turnover. In this context, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175. 8. Respectfully following the above, we direct Ld. AO to recompute deduction under section 10 A in accordance with ratio laid down by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Tata Elxsi Ltd.,. Page 4 of 5 IT(TP)A 689/Bang/2016 & IT(TP)A 591/Bang/2016 A. Y : 2011 – 12 Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by revenue stands dismissed and Ground N…

M/S, Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2249/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Subex Limited, Rmz Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 Panno.Aabcs9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant By : Shri Aditya Raipuria, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “C”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Subex Limited, RMZ Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 PANNo.AABCS9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent And ITA No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant by : Shri Aditya Raipuria, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT Date of hearing : 29-01-2020 Date of pronouncement : O R D E R PE…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fis Solutions Software Pvt. Ltd, (Earlier Known As Sungard Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2049/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2049/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Fis Solutions Software Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Sungard Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) Embassy Icon, No.3, Infantry Road, Bangalore- 560 001. Pan: Aaeca9056B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Jain &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 142(2)

…above carefully. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the facts of the case with respect to this ground are squarely covered by Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court‟s judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175) (2011). Respectfully following with judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court and other decisions quoted by the appellant, the AO is hereby directed to calculate deduction under section 10A after reducing the expenses which are reduced from export turnover, from total turnover as well. Ground No.4 raised by the appellant is accordingly allowed.” 12. T…

M/S. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2114/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2011-12 Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Building 2A, East Tower, of Income Tax, Embassy Tech Village, Circle 11(3), Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AABCE 3660Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ajay Rotti, CA Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09 .01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasud…

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

…owance was to be made it should have been made in respect of units as per the segmental financial statement filed by assessee. Ld.AR placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., reported in (2011) 194 Taxmann 192 where it was held that exemption under section 10A had to be granted on enhanced income. The alternative plea thus raised by assessee was that consequential benefit under section 10A should be allowed if such disallowance is to be made. Ld. DR submitted that the issue requires verification by Ld.AO. IT(TP)A No.1319(B)/2011 49 We have perused…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Panvel vs. M/S. Sai Homes, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1198/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Panvel Circle, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panvel. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sai Homes, 310/313, 3Rd Floor, Persipolis Co-Op. Society, Plot No.74-A, Sector-17, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Abafs3226K Revenue By : Shri Vilas Munde Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Thane Dated 28.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Granting Of Proportionate Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) Of The Act When There Is Violation To The Conditions Specified In The Clauses (C) & (F) I.E. Merger Of Flats & Sale Of Flats To Relatives Of Section 80Ib(10) Of The Act In Respect Of Certain Flats As Well As The On-Money Receipts In Respect Of Few Flats.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Munde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1198/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Panvel Circle, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panvel. बनाम / V/s. M/s. Sai Homes, 310/313, 3rd Floor, Persipolis Co-op. Society, Plot No.74-A, Sector-17, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703. ……""यथ" / Respondent PAN : ABAFS3226K Revenue by : Shri Vilas Munde Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e computed on the enhanced assessed business income; including the additions made to the returned business income; and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom) ITA Nos. 452 to 454/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 24 and of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M Pact Technology Services Ltd., in ITA No.228/2013 dated 11.07.2018. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material…

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e computed on the enhanced assessed business income; including the additions made to the returned business income; and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom) ITA Nos. 452 to 454/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 24 and of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M Pact Technology Services Ltd., in ITA No.228/2013 dated 11.07.2018. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material…

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e computed on the enhanced assessed business income; including the additions made to the returned business income; and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom) ITA Nos. 452 to 454/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 24 and of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M Pact Technology Services Ltd., in ITA No.228/2013 dated 11.07.2018. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material…