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 366,339 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.

ACIT, Madurai vs. M/S. Penguin Apparels P. Ltd., Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2230/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

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…

M/S New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…Sujata Grover reported in 74 TTJ 347 (Del) (ii). Priyanka Gems reported in 367 ITR 575 (Guj) (iii). Alps Chemicals Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 594 (Guj) (iv). Novels Software Development reported in 355 ITR 339 (Kar) (v). Pantasoft Technologies Ltd. reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad) 6. On the other hand Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently opposed the above submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. It was submitted by him that the Ld. CIT(A) has for just reasons rejected the arguments advanced and the decisions relied upon by the assessee and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for. 7. We have carefully considered th…

New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5126/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…Sujata Grover reported in 74 TTJ 347 (Del) (ii). Priyanka Gems reported in 367 ITR 575 (Guj) (iii). Alps Chemicals Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 594 (Guj) (iv). Novels Software Development reported in 355 ITR 339 (Kar) (v). Pantasoft Technologies Ltd. reported in 347 ITR 578 (Mad) 6. On the other hand Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently opposed the above submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. It was submitted by him that the Ld. CIT(A) has for just reasons rejected the arguments advanced and the decisions relied upon by the assessee and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for. 7. We have carefully considered th…