CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

M/S Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Mysore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.448/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Rangsons Electronics P. Ltd, No.347/D1 & 2, Electronics City, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore 570 016 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacr8750R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Dinesh P, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 15.10.2015 Pronounced On : 20.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

…ns of section 72 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ITA.448/Bang/2015 Page - 5 Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that the aforesaid decision was f…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Celstream Technolgoies P Ltd, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

…et off against profit of the subsequent year. Therefore, the AO set off the brought forward losses while allowing the claim of deduction u/s 10A by following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himatsingike Seide Ltd. vs. CIT (286 ITR 255). 7.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 10A without setting off the brought forward loss of the earlier year by following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385). 7.2 The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the AO has followed…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India (P) Limited, Bangalore

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

…e claim though the CIT revised his order u/s 263 and directed that the exemption be computed after set-off. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT. On appeal by the department, the High Court in CIT Vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 (Kar) reversed the order of IT(TP)A Nos.67 & 70/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 37 the Tribunal and held that the brought forward depreciation had to be adjusted against the profits of the EOU before computing the exemption allowable u/s 10B. In Civil Appeal No.1501 of 2008 dated 19.9.2013 against the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court,…

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

…e claim though the CIT revised his order u/s 263 and directed that the exemption be computed after set-off. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT. On appeal by the department, the High Court in CIT Vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 (Kar) reversed the order of IT(TP)A Nos.67 & 70/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 37 the Tribunal and held that the brought forward depreciation had to be adjusted against the profits of the EOU before computing the exemption allowable u/s 10B. In Civil Appeal No.1501 of 2008 dated 19.9.2013 against the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court,…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Carremen Silvercast Clothing(I)P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee is dismissed

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

…he claim though the CIT revised his order u/s 263 and directed that the exemption be computed after set-off. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT. On appeal by the department, the High Court in CIT Vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 (Kar) reversed the order of the Tribunal and held that the brought forward depreciation had to be adjusted against the profits of the EOU before computing the exemption allowable u/s 10B. In Civil Appeal No.1501 of 2008 dated 19.9.2013 against the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follow…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06

…he Act. ITA Nos. 1265 & 1320/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 11 61. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that the aforesaid decision was f…

Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06

…he Act. ITA Nos. 1265 & 1320/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 11 61. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that the aforesaid decision was f…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

…i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section 2(45) of the Act for determining the total income of the assessee and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Himmatsingike Seide Ltd (286 ITR 255), the AO held that the aggregate of the income and losses of all the units of the assessee had to be taken into account for calculating the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Besides, the AO found from the assessee’s submissions during the assessment proceedings that the long-term capital gains of Rs.43,73,000/- in respect of which exemption u/s 10(3…

M/S K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

…i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section 2(45) of the Act for determining the total income of the assessee and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Himmatsingike Seide Ltd (286 ITR 255), the AO held that the aggregate of the income and losses of all the units of the assessee had to be taken into account for calculating the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Besides, the AO found from the assessee’s submissions during the assessment proceedings that the long-term capital gains of Rs.43,73,000/- in respect of which exemption u/s 10(3…

M/S. K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

…i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section 2(45) of the Act for determining the total income of the assessee and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Himmatsingike Seide Ltd (286 ITR 255), the AO held that the aggregate of the income and losses of all the units of the assessee had to be taken into account for calculating the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Besides, the AO found from the assessee’s submissions during the assessment proceedings that the long-term capital gains of Rs.43,73,000/- in respect of which exemption u/s 10(3…

M/S K. Mohan & Compnay (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

…i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section 2(45) of the Act for determining the total income of the assessee and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Himmatsingike Seide Ltd (286 ITR 255), the AO held that the aggregate of the income and losses of all the units of the assessee had to be taken into account for calculating the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Besides, the AO found from the assessee’s submissions during the assessment proceedings that the long-term capital gains of Rs.43,73,000/- in respect of which exemption u/s 10(3…