CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

…de in original return though withdrawn in revised return on account of divergent view of the Courts on deduction/exemption under section 10A of the Act. 4.3. Not following the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. TEI Technologies (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 36 (Delhi) holding the view that the provisions of section 10A of the Act are in the nature of exemption and is not affected by the overall taxable income or loss of the assessee for the year under consideration. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271AA of the Act mechanically and without recording any…

Phonix Lamps Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S Pheonix Lamps Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 59A, Nsez, Phase-Ii, Range Noida. Noida. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :S/Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Sharat Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2017 O R D E R

…ce the objective and not frustrate it. I.T.A. 2845/Del/2007 Assessment year 2003-04 3.5 The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Tei Technologies Private Limited reported in 361 ITR 36 (Delhi) for the proposition that section 10A was an exemption provision and not a deduction provision and, therefore, it is not the gross income or receipt which would be eligible but only the net income that is to say the gross receipts of profits minus expenditure incurred that will be eligible for exemption. It was submitted that in light of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

…in any manner can be utilized and thus it loses characterizing business. The Ld. AR case. The Ld. AR also relied upon the orders of ITAT Delhi Bench in case of DCIT Vs. NIIT Ltd. (ITA No. 1112/Del/2012 dated 08.05.2015) and CIT Vs. TEI Technologies (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 36 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 10. We have heard both the sides, the reliance of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in case of Yokogawa India Ltd. clearly makes point that how the set off of unabsorbed depreciation has to be taken into account. As the income of the Section 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross…

Steria India Ltd. (Estwhile Xansa India Ltd.), Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

…in any manner can be utilized and thus it loses characterizing business. The Ld. AR case. The Ld. AR also relied upon the orders of ITAT Delhi Bench in case of DCIT Vs. NIIT Ltd. (ITA No. 1112/Del/2012 dated 08.05.2015) and CIT Vs. TEI Technologies (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 36 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 10. We have heard both the sides, the reliance of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in case of Yokogawa India Ltd. clearly makes point that how the set off of unabsorbed depreciation has to be taken into account. As the income of the Section 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/S. Niit Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacn0085D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the question of unabsorbed ITA No. 1112/Del/2012 NIIT Ltd. 16 business loss being set off against such profit and gains of the undertaking would not arise.” 17. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs TEI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 36 (Del.) held as under: “That for computing deduction under section 10A in respect of an export processing zone unit, the losses suffered in the non-export processing zone unit need not be set off against the profits/income of the export processing zone unit. The 7 AY: 2007-08 brought forward losses of the non-export processing zone unit need not be…

ACIT Circle 16 (1) vs. Techspan India Ltd

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2000-01 Assistant Cit, Vs. M/S. Techspan India Ltd., Circle 16(1), 103- Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. 24-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct5650D) Cross-Obj. No. 157/Del/2008 ( In Ita No. 2655/Del/2007) Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Techspan India Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 103- Ashoka Estate, Circle 16(1), 24-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct5650D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Cs Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & R.P. Mall, Adv. Department By: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Basically On Two Grounds. Firstly, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow Deduction Under Section 10A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & Secondly In Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Loss Of Rs.1,18,99,508. 2 2. The Assessee On The Other Hand In Its Cross Objection Has Raised Several Objections Including The Action Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) In Upholding The Validity Of Initiation Of Proceedings Under Sec. 147 Of The Act (Objection Nos. 1 & 2). In Objection No.3, The Action Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) In Recording A Finding That Assessee Had Not Claimed Any Deduction Under Sec. 10A Of The Act Has Been Objected & In Objection No.4, It Has Been Pleaded That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Ought To Have Held That Loss Suffered By The Assessee Was Allowable Business Loss To Be Carried Forward By Recording A Further Finding That The Invoices Were Raised At Arm’S Length Price.

…ward. The Learned AR submitted that even otherwise the reasons recorded for initiation of reopening proceeding was not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2014) – 361 ITR 36 (Del.) that the loss suffered under sec. 10A units can be carried forward and set off in the subsequent assessment years. The Learned AR submitted 6 further that in the present case, no notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act was issued, hence, there was no question of escapement of income. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'bl…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

…absorbed depreciation of Rs.36,70,496/- against interest income of Rs.7,91,145/- on the inter corporate deposits earned by the appellant and relied upon the judgement cited as CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 (Kar.) and CIT Vs TEI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 36 (Del.); that the surplus funds generated from business operation were kept as short term deposits on which interest of Rs.2,45,479/- was earned which the appellant has treated as business income, however, the same was assessed as income from other sources and relied upon the judgements cited as Deepak Pandurang Gadre vs DCIT in I.T.A. No. 225/PN/0…

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II

…ct of incomes profit and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking at the threshold and not as a deduction included in the gross income of an Assessee. He referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. TEI Technonlogies (P) Ltd.: (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Del), in support of the above contention. 17. He submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the eligible undertaking was to be treated as a separate source and its income was not to be intermingled with any other source. He emphatically urged that Section 10A undertaking had to be considered as a separate person whose income was not inclu…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Qualcomm India Pvt.Ltd

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

…ion under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, against the profits of the other units for the relevant year i.e. Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04. 3. This Court notices that the previous judgements of two Division Benches in CIT vs. Tei Tecnologies Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 36 and CIT vs. Kei Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 386/2013) decided on 13.03.2015 have accepted the revenue’s decision that such set off is impermissible. 4. Leraned counsel for the assessee relied upon a circular No.7/(DV)/2013 dated 16.07.2013 issued by the CBDT. The said circular, inter alia, after noting the previous legislative history of Section 10A/…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -II vs. Kei Industries Limited

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

…et off such loss in respect of income liable for taxation. Learned counsel urged that this court should follow its previous Division Bench precedent in CIT v. TEI Technologies (P) Ltd (ITA No. 347/2011 & 2067/2010; decided on 27-08-2012; reported in [2014] 361 ITR 36). ITA 386/2013 Page 7 7. Counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned judgment of the ITAT is sound and should not be upset. He relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Galaxy Surfactants (supra) and submitted that the previous ruling in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) also ruled that Section 10B is in the nature of d…