CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd.

353 ITR 326High Court2013#2752 most cited

What is CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. authority for?

For a valid claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, especially for a 100% Export Oriented Unit under Explanation 2(iv), approval from the Director STPI requires mandatory ratification by the specified "Board". An alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A, even if not initially raised before the Assessing Officer, can be directed for consideration by the Tribunal.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. · Regency Creations Ltd. 353 ITR 326 · Section 10B deduction · Section 10A deduction · 100% Export Oriented Unit · Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10B · STPI Director approval · Board ratification for 10B · Alternate claim Section 10A · Tribunal's power to consider new claims

Also reported as

27 Taxmann.com 322255 CTR 63
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd.

The ITO, Cochin vs. M/S.Pescainde, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…idence in support of his that the validity of approvals given by Development Commissioners has been examined and ratified by Board. The CIT(A) has not stated any reason for not following the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd. (353 ITR 326) (Delhi) even though this decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the judgment in this case has not been reversed till date. 4. The facts of the case for the assessment year 2011-12 are that the assessee is engaged in the business of export of I.T. enabled services. The scrutiny assessment in this case was completed on 27.0…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Charter Bpo Solutions P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

ITA 189/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Remya S.Menon, CA
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)

…for granting the benefits of section 10B of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer, in taking the above view, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Limited and CIT v. Valiant Communications Limited [(2013) 353 ITR 326 (Del)]. The Assessing Officer also rejected the alternative claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act for the reason that the said claim was not made in the return of income filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of ded…

M/S.Navigant Bpm (India) P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Revenue Med India P. Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, ground No.4

ITA 57/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ad claimed deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.1,85,34,036. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. [(2013) 255 CTR 63 (Del.)]. According to the A.O., the assessee’s unit was not approved by an appropriate authority constituted u/s 14 of the Industrial (Development & Regulations) Act, 1951 and hence was not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. IT(TP)A No.57/Coch/2016 4 SA No.62/Coch/2017. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. The assessee in the course of as…

Maxval Technologies Ltd, Belapur vs. ITO WD 3, Panvel, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3714/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 10BSection 14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3714/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Maxval Technologies Pvt. Ltd. T–251, ITC 5th Floor, Tower no.10 CBD Belapur Station Complex ……………. Appellant CBD Belapur 400 614 PAN – AAECM0983B v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Panvel ITA no.3715/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Maxval Technologies Pvt. Ltd. T–251, ITC 5th Floor, Tower no.10 CBD Belapur Station Complex ……………. Appellant CBD Belapur 400 614 PAN – AAECM0983B v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Inc…

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2083/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…coming within clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 10B of the Act. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee was denied such exemption relying on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd (2012) 27 Taxmann.com 322). Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that in its appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee had made an alternative claim for allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court i…

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2082/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…coming within clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 10B of the Act. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee was denied such exemption relying on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd (2012) 27 Taxmann.com 322). Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that in its appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee had made an alternative claim for allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court i…

M/S Madura Stones Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Madura Stones Pvt. Ltd.…….…..……………………...………………..……………..….Appellant 5, Clive Row 6Th Floor Room No. 6A Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaecm 6774 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)…………………………………………………….……...Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 10BSection 14Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Madura Stones Pvt. Ltd.…….…..……………………...………………..……………..….Appellant 5, Clive Row 6th Floor Room No. 6A Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AAECM 6774 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)…………………………………………………….……...Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 6th, 2018…

M/S Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 5473/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Stay Application No.109/Del Of 2018 (In Ita No.5473/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

…s the return u/s 139(1) of the Act and the learned AO cannot go beyond that return to the original one to disallow the claim of the assessee u/s 10B of the Act. 7. In so far as merits are concerned, learned AR submitted that in CIT vs Regency Creations Ltd., 353 ITR 326 (Del), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court initially rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 10B of the Act for want of approval from the board appointed u/s 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951 (“IDR Act”) but not by the STPI authorities. He submitted that, however, in the review petition filed by the asses…

Rc Golden Granites Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1373/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1373, 1374, 1375 & 1376/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-202. Rc Golden Granites Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.4, 7Th Cross Street, Corporate Ward 5(4) Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aadcr 3826P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 14Section 40A(3)

…of the Tribunal, held the assessee as not eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd, 353 ITR 326 for taking a view that there was no official document authorizing any officer or agency to perform the duties of the Board constituted u/s.14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. ITA Nos. 1373 to 1376/Mds/17. :- 4 -: Continuing his submissions, ld. Authorised Representative 4. argued that ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the l…

M/S Avalon Business Associates vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14 & Anr

The appeal is dismissed, subject to the above observations

ITA/892/2017HC Delhi25 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10BSection 263

…Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi) is conclusive and the ITAT’s reliance upon its subsequent ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Valiant Communications Ltd. (2013) 353 ITR 326 Del. deserves no consequence. It was highlighted that Valiant Communications Ltd. (supra) did not take into account the relevant circulars of 2008-09 as well as the decision in Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra). 6. At the outset, we notice that Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) itself took note of the circular of 09.03.2009, which in mater…

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

…t. The assessments were completed for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 10B of the Act by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd. reported in 255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented unit according to the As…

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

…t. The assessments were completed for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 10B of the Act by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd. reported in 255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented unit according to the As…

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

…t. The assessments were completed for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 10B of the Act by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd. reported in 255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented unit according to the As…

Cenosphere India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1094/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 10BSection 14

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1094/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s Cenosphere India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of 282, Linghi Chetty Street, v. Income Tax, Chennai - 600 001. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. PAN : AACCS 2764 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cks Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 28/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Smt. Jayna Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 10BSection 14

…n by the Director of STPI. He thus held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Act. 04. Now before us, Ld. DR strongly assailing the order of CIT (A) submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd [(2013) 353 ITR 326 had held that there was a deliberate segregation made by the legislature between the benefits given to an assessee between Sections 10A and 10B of the Act. As per the Ld. DR, their Lordship held that for qualifying for the benefits under section 10B of the Act, the procedure laid down enacted in the said section had to be followed. Thus as per th…

Rc Golden Granites Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 897/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.As. No.897, 898, 899 & 900/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. Rc Golden Granites Private Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.17,Type Ii, Company Ward V(1) Dr.Vsi Estate, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan Aadcr3826P ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Supriya Pal, JCIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 1OSection 264Section 40A(3)

…ranted by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ, SEZ, Tambaram has not the one prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 10B of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd (2013) 353 ITR 326 and ITAT, (2012) 11 TMI 382, the ld. Authorised Representative further argued that alternatively the ld. Assessing Officer should have allowed deduction u/s.10A of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has produced on 28.01.2016 Additional information before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the provisions of ru…

ITO 8(2)4, Mumbai vs. Pharmaceutical Research Association India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 1643/M/2014 and ITA No

ITA 1643/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1643/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Ito 8(2)(4), M/S Pharmaceutical Research Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Association India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd., Kamdar Shopping Centre, Office No.5,V.S. Khandekar Marg, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1644/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Ito 8(2)(4), M/S Pharmaceutical Research Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Association India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd., Kamdar Shopping Centre, Office No.5,V.S. Khandekar Marg, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.685/Mum/2013,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 M/S Sterling Synergy System Pvt.Ltd. Dcit 8(3), (Now Known As M/S Pharmaceutical Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Research Associates India Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Mumbai-400020 Office No.1, 1St Floor, Rang Bhavan, M.G.Cross Road, Near Bank Of Baroda,Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1726/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 M/S Pharmaceutical Research Dcit 8(3), Associates India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As M/S Sterling Vs Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd.), Office No.1, 1St Floor, Rang Bhavan, M.G.Cross Road, Near Bank Of Baroda,Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan:Aaacs9202R

Section 10B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, lh lh खंडपीठ मुंबई lhlh INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - C BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं iou flag iou flag iou flag "या"यक सद"य iou flag Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.1643/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 ITO 8(2)(4), M/s Pharmaceutical Research Room No. 213/216A, 2nd Floor, Association India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs (Formerly known as M/s Sterling Mumbai-400020 Synergy System Pvt. Ltd., Kamdar Shopping Centre, Office No.5,V.S. Khandekar Marg, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057. PAN:AAACS9202R (अपील…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Next Services Healthcare Sourcing Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6526/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta (DR)For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)

…tions Ltd. in ITA No. 1588/Del/2010 dt. 5.5.2011. Now, the said decisions of the Delhi Tribunal stands reversed by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the same case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd. & Valiant Communications Ltd. reported in [2013] 353 ITR 326. 3. Explaining the brief facts, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessee is an export oriented unit and received all its revenue by export of services in foreign exchange. It had claimed deduction of Rs. 50,10,459/- u/s 10B on the basis of Audit report. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction u/s 10B on the ground that the Assessee…

Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -11(1)

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances,

ITA/339/2015HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 10B

…ITA Nos.334, 338,339 & 342/2015 Page 1 of 9 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10-13 + ITA 334/2015 FAST BOOKING (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -11(1)..... Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel. With ITA 338/2015…

Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -11(1)

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances,

ITA/334/2015HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 10B

…ITA Nos.334, 338,339 & 342/2015 Page 1 of 9 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10-13 + ITA 334/2015 FAST BOOKING (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -11(1)..... Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel. With ITA 338/2015…