CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448High Court2010#3369 most cited

What is CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. authority for?

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. · 328 ITR 448 · Section 80AB · Section 80IA · gross total income · business income · Chapter VI-A deductions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(34)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 194QSection 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhesection 80abretention moneysection 10(33)section 80hsection 80csection 80hhinitial assessment yearsection 72eligible businesssection 253(3)section 70

Judgments citing CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg vs. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lko

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 623/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy./A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.356 & 357/Lkw/2020 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.453 & 454/Lkw/2020 Assessment Y…

M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-1, Central-1, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 17/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy./A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.356 & 357/Lkw/2020 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.453 & 454/Lkw/2020 Assessment Y…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy./A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Central-1), Lucknow PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.356 & 357/Lkw/2020 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.Ι.Τ.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Central-1), Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.453 & 454/Lkw/2020 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18…

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 356/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy./A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.356 & 357/Lkw/2020 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-1, B-9, Vibhuti Khand, (Central-1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.453 & 454/Lkw/2020 Assessment Y…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3290/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIR-DR
Section 2Section 80ASection 80B(5)Section 80CSection 80H

…9. The controversy in this case pertains to the deduction under Section 80- IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) 9 | Page extent of ‘gross total income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Ch…

Mmtc Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2488/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIR-DR
Section 2Section 80ASection 80B(5)Section 80CSection 80H

…9. The controversy in this case pertains to the deduction under Section 80- IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) 9 | Page extent of ‘gross total income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Ch…

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

…; 9. The controversy in this case pertains to the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act being allowed to the extent of ‘business income’ only. The claim of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80-IA should be allowed to the 5 (1986) 3 SCC 538 6 [2010] 328 ITR 448 (Bombay) 9 | Page extent of ‘gross total M/s. MMTC Ltd. 21 income’ was rejected by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to reproduce Section 80AB of the Act which is as follows: “80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to the income included in the gross total income. — Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

…gross total income. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- Page No. | 31 ITA NO. 2908 & 4108/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2003-04) M/s. Zensor Technologies Ltd a) CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories reported in 328 ITR 448 b) V.M.Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 81 taxmann.com 357. c) CIT vs. Eskay Knit (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010. d) CIT vs. J.B.Boda & Co., Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.3224 of 2009 dated 18/10/2010. 6.5. In the instant case, we find that if the set off of brought forward business…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…ade by the assessee from the eligible business and such deduction is to be allowed from gross total income. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- a) CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories reported in 328 ITR 448 b) V.M.Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 81 taxmann.com 357. c) CIT vs. Eskay Knit (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010. d) CIT vs. J.B.Boda & Co., Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.3224 of 2009 dated 18/10/2010. 6.5. In the instant case, we find that if the set off of brought forward business…

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 955/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

…made by the assessee from the eligible business and such deduction is to be allowed from gross total income. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- a) CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories reported in 328 ITR 448 b) V.M.Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 81 taxmann.com 357. c) CIT vs. Eskay Knit (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010. d) CIT vs. J.B.Boda & Co., Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.3224 of 2009 dated 18/10/2010. 6.5. In the instant case, we find that if the set off of brought forward business…

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 276/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

…made by the assessee from the eligible business and such deduction is to be allowed from gross total income. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- a) CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories reported in 328 ITR 448 b) V.M.Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 81 taxmann.com 357. c) CIT vs. Eskay Knit (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010. d) CIT vs. J.B.Boda & Co., Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.3224 of 2009 dated 18/10/2010. 6.5. In the instant case, we find that if the set off of brought forward business…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd ( Formerly International Computers (India) Ltd ), Mumbai vs. The CIT -2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 80H

…ade by the assessee from the eligible business and such deduction is to be allowed from gross total income. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- a) CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories reported in 328 ITR 448 b) V.M.Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 81 taxmann.com 357. c) CIT vs. Eskay Knit (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 dated 25/03/2010. d) CIT vs. J.B.Boda & Co., Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.3224 of 2009 dated 18/10/2010. 6.5. In the instant case, we find that if the set off of brought forward business…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Ghodawat Energy Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2736/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 80I

…3/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Ghodawat Energy Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2735/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 80I

…3/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Ghodawat Energy Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2734/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 80I

…3/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2743/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2742/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2741/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2740/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2739/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ction u/s.80IA at Rs.5,63,38,425/-/-. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd., 328 ITR 448 ( Bom.) wherein it has been held that “in computing the total income of the assessee, there is no basis in the provisions of section 80IA to restrict the expression to total income derived from an eligible business. Having regard to the provisions noted above, the submission urged on behalf of the revenue could not accepted.” In this scenario, it…

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (328 ITR 448) — Cited in 35 Judgments | BharatTax