CIT v. Highway Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…decision of another High Court is available. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for t…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…decision of another High Court is available. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for t…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

…decision of another High Court is available. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for t…

SULZER PUMPS INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

…d Tribunal situated within its jurisdictional territory as held in Taylor vs. CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v Thana Elec 206 ITR 727; Indian Tube v CIT 203 ITR 54; CIT v Joshi and Joshi 202 ITR 1017. CIT v Highway 217 ITR 234; CIT v Maganlal 210 ITR 580. The above additional ground is a purely legal one and following the decision in NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit it for adjudication. Further in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that: “24. The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill, 1961, as introduced in the…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ing when there is no contrary decision of another High Court is available. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for…

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

…igh Court judgments, the above decisions of Delhi High Court (Joint Investments) and Punjab & Haryana High Court (Empire Package) should be followed. 1. Smt. Nirmalabai K 186 ITR 242 (Bom) 2. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf 113 ITR 589 ()Bom) 3. Highway Construction 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati) 4. Maganlal Mohanlal 210 ITR 580 (Gujarat) NO TAX WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW – TRIBUNAL CAN GIVE RELIEF EVEN IF AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME 6. Article 265 of the Constitution in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law and therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court has hel…