CIT v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd.

347 ITR 578High Court2012#5043 most cited

What is CIT v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. authority for?

The exclusion of income derived from the export of computer software under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible even if the business of exporting software was acquired by the assessee.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. · Section 10A · Section 10AA · export of computer software · business acquisition · tax exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 115-OSection 143(3)Section 10BSection 14ASection 194RSection 234B

Issues it is cited on

convertible foreign exchangeddtsection 10aadividend distribution taxcredit for tdssection 10acomputer softwaretax deducted at sourcesection 10double taxationincome from other sourcessection 115

Judgments citing CIT v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd.

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6543/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…ITAT in AY 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 6414/Del/2016 & 6542/Del/2016 order dated 18-12-2024 and relevant issue is discussed at para 9 onwards with conclusions in para 11. He further placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad). (ii) Gen Plus Jewellery reported 233 CTR 248(80m) (iii) Cognizant Technology Solutions reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 401 (Mad) SLP dismissed in 454 ITR 1 (SC). 8. Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of lower authorities. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the identical issue wa…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6415/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…ITAT in AY 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 6414/Del/2016 & 6542/Del/2016 order dated 18-12-2024 and relevant issue is discussed at para 9 onwards with conclusions in para 11. He further placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad). (ii) Gen Plus Jewellery reported 233 CTR 248(80m) (iii) Cognizant Technology Solutions reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 401 (Mad) SLP dismissed in 454 ITR 1 (SC). 8. Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of lower authorities. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the identical issue wa…

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.202/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy. Cit Solutions (P) Ltd, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated10/02/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 438Section 43B

…ITA No 202 of 2023 Excelra Knowledge Solutions P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.202/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy. CIT Solutions (P) Ltd, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAFCG5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronounce…

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6542/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…d in favour of the assessee by ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 (supra) and the relevant issue was discussed at para 8 onwards with conclusions in paras 8.5 to 8.8. He further relied on the following decisions: (i) Pentasoft Technologies reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad). (ii) Gen Plus Jewellery reported in 233 CTR 248(Bom) (iii) Cognizant Technology Solutions reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 401(Mad) SLP dismissed in 454 ITR 1 (SC). 10. Per contra, Ld. DR neither controverted the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR nor placed any contrary decision before us. 11. In the background of the aforesaid discussi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6414/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…d in favour of the assessee by ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 (supra) and the relevant issue was discussed at para 8 onwards with conclusions in paras 8.5 to 8.8. He further relied on the following decisions: (i) Pentasoft Technologies reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad). (ii) Gen Plus Jewellery reported in 233 CTR 248(Bom) (iii) Cognizant Technology Solutions reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 401(Mad) SLP dismissed in 454 ITR 1 (SC). 10. Per contra, Ld. DR neither controverted the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR nor placed any contrary decision before us. 11. In the background of the aforesaid discussi…

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

…e product filter. Considering the same, Ld. DRP upheld the exclusion of both these entities. The forex loss adjustment as claimed by the assessee was rejected considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (347 ITR 578) holding that foreign exchange was directly related to exports sales and therefore, it cannot be treated as other than part of profit from export. The custom duty adjustment was also not accepted on the ground that the assessee did not provide any such adjustment in its own TP study. Finally, the adjustments were upheld against which the assessee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…port receivables at the end of the year is of no consequence or relevance as to that extent, the sales would happen in next year. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad) had categorically held that gains arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations are having direct nexus over the export sales of the assessee and would be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8.7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. Reported…

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…port receivables at the end of the year is of no consequence or relevance as to that extent, the sales would happen in next year. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad) had categorically held that gains arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations are having direct nexus over the export sales of the assessee and would be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8.7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. Reported…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ntt Data Global Delivery

In the result questions No

ITA/251/2014HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 260

…ind for the Revenue pressed this ground and contended that the view taken by the ITAT is not sustainable in law. 2 ITA No.351/2012 decided on 12.11.2020 (Kar.) 3 (2018)404 ITR 719 (SC) 4 (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Madras High Court) I.T.A No.251 OF 2014 6 8. The ITAT has considered this aspect in para 22 of it’s order and held that the Assessing Officer has not considered the exact nature of expenses incurred in fo…

M/S. Solitaire Diamond, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1737/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Solitaire Diamond, Room No. 2, First Floor, A. Wing, Nagindas Mansion Building, Opera House, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Abxfs1928F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-19(3)(4), Second Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil S. Sant, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 2

…, under s. 10A should not be allowed in respect of such exchange gain. Therefore, we vacate the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 14. Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. [347 ITR 578]. In this case, question of law that was framed by the Hon’ble High Court was as under: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that gains on account of foreign exchange fluctuation held to have direct nexus with the export sales of the assessee and, hence, is eli…

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)

…vities and such gains should be considered as income derived from export activities eligible for exemption u/s.10A in the year in which export took place.” 21.1 We further find the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (347 ITR 578) (2012) held that “ the exchange value based on upward or downward of the Rupee value is not in the hands of the assessee. In other words, the assessee does not determine the exchange value of the Indian Rupee. It has to be remembered but for the fact that the assessee is an export house, there was no question of earning any foreign exchange. The…

Renault Nissan Technology & Business Cenre India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3193/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 144CSection 253

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3193/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Ascendas IT Park, Mahindra World The Deputy Commissioner of City, v. Income Tax, SEZ No.TP 2/1 Natham Sub Post Corporate Circle 5(1), Office, Kancheepuram District, Chennai - 600 034. Tamil Nadu – 603 002. PAN :…

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

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3195/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri. Sankara Narayana, S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, JCIT
Section 144C(13)

…nature by virtue of Rule 10TA(j)(iv) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘’the Rules’’). As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. DRP had relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd , 347 ITR 578 in upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. According to him, the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd (supra) was on claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act and had nothing to do with a TP adjustment. 11. Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the issue stood covered in favour of the Re…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. M/S. Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 334/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…(2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) in the instant case has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the alternative plea of the assesse…

M/S. Clinipace Clinical Research P. Ltd(Formerly Paragon Bio Medical P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 297/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…(2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) in the instant case has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the alternative plea of the assesse…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. M/S. Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 249/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…(2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) in the instant case has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the alternative plea of the assesse…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. New Age Software & Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2903/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali MohanFor Respondent: Mr.Vikram vijayaraghavan
Section 10A

…ng deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. ( 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) ), concluded that the gain from foreign exchange ITA No.2903/Mds./16 :- 4 -: fluctuation is directly relatable to the export business of the assessee and therefore, the benefit of Sec.10AA has to be extended to such gain. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue/Assessee is in appeal before us. 5.2. We have heard both the parti…

Magick Woods Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2105/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 10BSection 10fSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 438

…) prays for exclusion of the said sum from the export turnover as well as the total turnover in the interest of justice. This issue of foreign exchange gain is covered by the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v Pentasoft Technologies Ltd.(347 ITR 578). Respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appellant's plea is allowed. The appellant succeeds on this account.” 8.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the interest income should be excluded not only from the export turnover but also from the total turnover while computing deduction U/s.10B of the Act, following the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Maars Software International Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/CHNY/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.631/Mds./2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2002-03)

For Appellant: noneFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 10A

…is taken for adjudication after hearing the ld.D.R. 4. After perusing the material on record and hearing the ld.DR, the similar issue came for consideration before the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., in (2012) 347 ITR 578(Madras) wherein held that:- “4. In order to allow a claim under section 10A of the Act, what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee. The exchange value based on upward or downward of the rupee value is not in the hands of the assessee. In other words, the assessee doe…

DCIT, Madurai vs. Penguin Apparels P Ltd., Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 390/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2230/Mds/2013 & 390/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-2011 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/S. Penguin Apparels P. Ltd. Of Income Tax, Vs. Plot No.2, Meenakshmi Nagar, Circle I(1) Gst Road, Pasumalai, Madurai Madurai 625 004. [Pan Aabcp 7832P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he business activity. The activity of rate difference arised directly related to the sale transaction involving export of goods of industrial undertaking. We rely on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd 347 ITR 578 (Mad) were it was held that in order to allow a claim under section 10A what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee. The exchange value based on upward or downward of the rupee value is not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, when the fluctuation in foreign ex…

CIT v. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (347 ITR 578) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax