CIT v. Paul Bros.

349 ITR 150High Court2012#7868 most cited

What is CIT v. Paul Bros. authority for?

The Bombay High Court holds that when an SEZ unit is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing unit, it is eligible for deductions under Section 10AA. This is because the SEZ Act overrides the Income-tax Act in such cases.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paul Bros. · Section 10AA · SEZ unit · splitting up · reconstruction · eligibility for deduction · SEZ Act overriding Income-tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Paul Bros.

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

…KG Information Ltd ITA No. 1884/Mds/2006 [CLC Pg.56-62] vii. CIT v Western Outdoor Interactive P. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 309 (Born) [CLC Pg. 63-66] viii. CIT v. Paul Brothers [1995] 216 ITR 548 (Boni) [CLC Pg.67-69] ix. Direct Information P. Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 349 ITR 150 (Bom) [CLC Pg.70-78] x. IBM India Pvt. Ltd v ACIT IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/20I8 dated 31.07.2020 [CLC Pg.79-179] 3.20 There has been no change in the facts in the present year from those on the basis of which deduction under section 10AA had been granted for AY 2009-10. Accordingly, the deduction of Rs.22,07,03,938 claimed under section I OAA of the…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…ra Prakashan Ltd. ii) 251 CTR 290 (Del) CIT v Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. iii) 214 CTR 227 (Del) CIT vs. Jagson International Ltd. iv) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) CIT vs. Paul Brothers. v) 349 ITR 309 (Bom) CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. vi) 349 ITR 150 (Bom) Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO vii) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) C.I.T. v Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals. viii) 267 ITR 774 (AP) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO ix) 133 ITR 687 (MP) CIT vs. Bhilai Enginering Corporation x) ITA No. 477/2013 dated 28.7.2014 (Kar) M/s Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT xi) 244 Taxman 217 (SC) CIT v.…

Pramod Paliwal, Khanwa vs. ACIT Khanwa, Khanwa

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

ITA 271/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…3.01 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (2016) 95 CCH 15 (DeI 6 Pramod Paliwal HC) iii) Direct Information (P) Ltd. vs. ITa (2012) 349 ITR 150 (MumHC) iv) Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 242 ITR 173 (GujHC) v) Dell India (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 127 DTR 291 (Kar.) vi) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar.) vii) CITvs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 105 (Bom.) viii) Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308ITR 190 (Born.) i…

A.C.I.T, Akola Circle, Akola vs. M/S Leben Laboratories Pvt..Ltd, Akola

ITA 235/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…nion. The reopening of assessment to impose change of opinion is not permissible. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii. Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 349 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 333(Bom); iv. CIT Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd. decided by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2003 on 29-09-2007. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently defended the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the asse…

M/S. Leben Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

ITA 459/NAG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…nion. The reopening of assessment to impose change of opinion is not permissible. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii. Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 349 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 333(Bom); iv. CIT Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd. decided by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2003 on 29-09-2007. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently defended the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the asse…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 681/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 1Section 115WSection 147Section 36

…eliance upon the following case laws: 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) 2. NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bombay) 3. Direct Information (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2012] 349 ITR 150 (Bombay) 4. Purity Techtextile (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 325 ITR 459 (Bombay) 5. Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) 8. The ld. Counsel of the assessee further referred to PB pg. 19. He referred that in notes, the matter was duly disclosed. The ld. Counsel of the assessee Shri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…ner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the SEEPZ unit is not formed by splitting up of the first unit.” To the same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Direct Information Private Ltd. vs. ITO: 349 ITR 150 and the following decisions of the Delhi High Court: - CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 - CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 - CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 251 CTR 290 In view of the above, it is submitted that since deduction under sections 80IA of the Act is a deduction admissible for a certain…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nesco Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5611/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ase of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has also not sustained such reopening of the completed assessment and therefore the decision in the case of Direct Information Pvt.Ltd vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom), is applicable to the case under appeal Recently, Hon'ble 8 M/S. NESCO LTD. Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam vs. CIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del) has held that no such case can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion or without having fresh tangible material before initiating reopening proceeding. Further, the Hon'bl…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…rt v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6 Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 8 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9 CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 482 (Bom). 10 Direct information (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 349 ITR 150 (Bom) 11 NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (No. 2) [2012J 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 12 Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 346 ITR 528 (Bom). I.T.A .No.-1476/Del/2014 Richa Industries Ltd. vs ACIT Page 7 of 8 13 NDT Systems v. ITO [2014] 363 ITR 602 (Bom) 15 Ritu Investments (P) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 345 1TR214 (Delhi). 16 Amrit Feeds…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…lied upon the following decisions:- 1. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Kelvinator India Ltd. 2. (2012)254 CTR 221(SC), Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. 3. (2012) 252 CTR 78 (Bom. HC), Monitor India (P) Ltd. 4. (2012) 68 DTR 85 (Bom), NYK Line (India) Ltd. 5. (2011)349 ITR 150 (Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens In…

Addl CIT Cen Cir IX, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 8503/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. (A.Y. 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court followed CIT vs. Paul Bros (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)(HC), Direct Information P. Ltd.vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom.)(HC). 2.2. It is also noted that in the case of the assessee for Assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 (ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007) vide order dated 25/02/2009 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) concluded/observed as under:- “7.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the subm…

ACIT Cen Cir Cir-34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 3859/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. (A.Y. 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court followed CIT vs. Paul Bros (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)(HC), Direct Information P. Ltd.vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom.)(HC). 2.2. It is also noted that in the case of the assessee for Assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 (ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007) vide order dated 25/02/2009 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) concluded/observed as under:- “7.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the subm…

DCIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 5751/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. (A.Y. 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court followed CIT vs. Paul Bros (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)(HC), Direct Information P. Ltd.vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom.)(HC). 2.2. It is also noted that in the case of the assessee for Assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 (ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007) vide order dated 25/02/2009 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) concluded/observed as under:- “7.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the subm…

Sunil Gavaskar, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80RSection 8O

…upreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and has been followed regularly. Subsequently, in many judgments including various judgments from Hon’ble Bombay High Court also, e.g. in the case of Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 349 ITR 150 (Bom), a similar view has been taken by the jurisdictional high court. We shall also like to rely upon a very recent judgment from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, W.P. No. 2665/2007, order dated 18th January, 2016, in support of our view, wherein it was held that when the assessment order was pa…

CIT v. Paul Bros. (349 ITR 150) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax