CIT v. Priyanka Gems

367 ITR 575High Court2014#6480 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Priyanka Gems

M/S. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1947/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…different. Now can this particular exchange variation be also termed as related to export of goods? The answer is no. This aspect was not considered in ITAT case relied upon and so due to difference in facts , it cannot be followed. The case of Priyanka Gems [367 ITR 575 (Guj)] dealt with issue of exclusion in clause (baa) to Explanation of Sec. 80HHC, and that has got nothing to do with provision of Sec.10B and so, that argument is rejected. 8.4. The amount which is allowable to an assessee as a deduction under s. 10B is profits and gains derived by the assessee from 100 per cent EOU. Thus, the amount which qua…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1909/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…different. Now can this particular exchange variation be also termed as related to export of goods? The answer is no. This aspect was not considered in ITAT case relied upon and so due to difference in facts , it cannot be followed. The case of Priyanka Gems [367 ITR 575 (Guj)] dealt with issue of exclusion in clause (baa) to Explanation of Sec. 80HHC, and that has got nothing to do with provision of Sec.10B and so, that argument is rejected. 8.4. The amount which is allowable to an assessee as a deduction under s. 10B is profits and gains derived by the assessee from 100 per cent EOU. Thus, the amount which qua…

THE ADDL. VAPI RANGE,, VAPI vs. M/S. HAMILTON HOUSEWARES VT..LTD., SILVASSA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1264/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1264/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Vapi Circle, Vapi. 288/1, Near Dadra Gram Panchayat, Demni Road, Dadra, Silvassa. [Pan: Aabcd 1683 Q] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.Gopalakrishnan – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 18.09.2018

Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

…ble profit for deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) noted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09. Similarly, the CIT(A) has placed reliance in the case of CIT VS. Priyanka Gems 367 ITR 575 (Guj) in which it has been Page 3 of 6 ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi Vs. Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Ltd./I.T.A. No.1264/AHD/2015/SRT/A.Y.:2011-12 held that Foreign Exchange Gain has to be considered as eligible deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. The ld.Senior Departmental Representative (S…