CIT v. RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar)

292 ITR 355Reported decision2007#11434 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 80-I(1)Section 80-I(6)Section 80A(2)Section 80ABSection 80B(5)

Judgments citing CIT v. RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar)

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma & Shri Apurva Chudhry, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 80I

…deductions under this Chapter shall not be in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee and therefore the total deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I should not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. In CIT v. R.P.G. Telecoms Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 355 the Karnataka High Court has held that section 80AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would override all other sections for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act and while calculating the gross total income of the company, one has to adjust the losses from one priority unit against the profits of the other priority unit and if the res…

M/S Nsl Sugars Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1228/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

…refore, loss from the oil division of the assessee was required to be adjusted before determining the gross total income, and since the gross total income was ‘Nil’, assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under s. 80-I. 14. In CIT Vs. RPG Telecoms Ltd. 292 ITR 355 (Karn), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court considered the very same issue of deduction u/s.80-I of the Act, whether it should be restricted to gross total income or should be ITA No. 37/B/2016, 1228/B/17 & CO No.66/B/2016 Page 11 of 18 allowed as computed under Sec.80-I(1) of the Act. After considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Nsl Sugars Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 37/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

…refore, loss from the oil division of the assessee was required to be adjusted before determining the gross total income, and since the gross total income was ‘Nil’, assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under s. 80-I. 14. In CIT Vs. RPG Telecoms Ltd. 292 ITR 355 (Karn), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court considered the very same issue of deduction u/s.80-I of the Act, whether it should be restricted to gross total income or should be ITA No. 37/B/2016, 1228/B/17 & CO No.66/B/2016 Page 11 of 18 allowed as computed under Sec.80-I(1) of the Act. After considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT RG 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…n two units and profit in one unit should be set off before computing deduction – CIT vs. Sundravel Match Industries Pvt Ltd. (MAD) 245 ITR 605 and CIT vs Macmilan Co. of India Ltd. (MAD) 243 ITR 403. Further, it has been held in CIT vs RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) 292 ITR 355 that “set off loss in other u nits against the income from eligible units and compute deduction only on the net income”. and accordingly, computed the deduction under section 80IB in the following manner: Name of Unit Profit Loss Net Amount 1)Multipurpose Formulation Unit 20,00,51,614 20,00,51,614 2)Thiamethoxam Unit 2,19,69,406 2,19,59,406…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…n two units and profit in one unit should be set off before computing deduction – CIT vs. Sundravel Match Industries Pvt Ltd. (MAD) 245 ITR 605 and CIT vs Macmilan Co. of India Ltd. (MAD) 243 ITR 403. Further, it has been held in CIT vs RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) 292 ITR 355 that “set off loss in other u nits against the income from eligible units and compute deduction only on the net income”. and accordingly, computed the deduction under section 80IB in the following manner: Name of Unit Profit Loss Net Amount 1)Multipurpose Formulation Unit 20,00,51,614 20,00,51,614 2)Thiamethoxam Unit 2,19,69,406 2,19,59,406…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Syngenta India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…n two units and profit in one unit should be set off before computing deduction – CIT vs. Sundravel Match Industries Pvt Ltd. (MAD) 245 ITR 605 and CIT vs Macmilan Co. of India Ltd. (MAD) 243 ITR 403. Further, it has been held in CIT vs RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) 292 ITR 355 that “set off loss in other u nits against the income from eligible units and compute deduction only on the net income”. and accordingly, computed the deduction under section 80IB in the following manner: Name of Unit Profit Loss Net Amount 1)Multipurpose Formulation Unit 20,00,51,614 20,00,51,614 2)Thiamethoxam Unit 2,19,69,406 2,19,59,406…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…n two units and profit in one unit should be set off before computing deduction – CIT vs. Sundravel Match Industries Pvt Ltd. (MAD) 245 ITR 605 and CIT vs Macmilan Co. of India Ltd. (MAD) 243 ITR 403. Further, it has been held in CIT vs RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) 292 ITR 355 that “set off loss in other u nits against the income from eligible units and compute deduction only on the net income”. and accordingly, computed the deduction under section 80IB in the following manner: 41 "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Syngenta India Ltd ITA 8534/Mum/2011 ITA 649/Mum/2013 Name of Unit Profit Loss Net Amount 1)Multipurpose F…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…n two units and profit in one unit should be set off before computing deduction – CIT vs. Sundravel Match Industries Pvt Ltd. (MAD) 245 ITR 605 and CIT vs Macmilan Co. of India Ltd. (MAD) 243 ITR 403. Further, it has been held in CIT vs RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) 292 ITR 355 that “set off loss in other u nits against the income from eligible units and compute deduction only on the net income”. and accordingly, computed the deduction under section 80IB in the following manner: 41 "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Syngenta India Ltd ITA 8534/Mum/2011 ITA 649/Mum/2013 Name of Unit Profit Loss Net Amount 1)Multipurpose F…

M/S. Synco Industries Ltd vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Mumbai &Anr

C.A. No.-004190-004191 - 2002Supreme Court13 Mar 2008
For Respondent: Assessing Officer, Income Tax,Mumbai & Anr
Section 260Section 80Section 80ASection 80GSection 80HSection 80J

…be in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee and therefore the total deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I should not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. In Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. R.P.G. Telecoms Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 355 the Karnataka High Court has held that Section 80AB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, would override all other Sections for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act and while calculating the gross total income of the company, one has to adjust the losses from one priority unit against the profits of the other priority unit and if th…

CIT v. RPG Telecom Ltd. (Kar) (292 ITR 355) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax