How many judgments cite CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.?

270 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 10(34), Section 10(35), Section 14A, Section 2(24).

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

341 ITR 385High Court2012#296 most cited

What is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. authority for?

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

270

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. · Section 115JB · book profits · MAT computation · provision for doubtful debts · add-back · Section 36(1)(vii) · Minimum Alternate Tax · book profit calculation · doubtful debt provision · Karnataka High Court · 17 Taxmann.com 15

Also reported as

204 Taxmann 30517 Taxmann.com 15246 CTR 226

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 36(1)(vii)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 14A Section 2(24)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40(a)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(2)section 40(a)(i)book profits section 115j amalgamation section 115jb disallowance under section 14a commercial expediency disallowance u/s 14a section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Delixus Software India Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur

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

ITA 1167/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Saravanan, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 10BSection 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(2)Section 80B(5)

…DR as well as the learned AR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) had decided the issue by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd (341 ITR 385) at para 3.3 to 3.4 of his order as under; “3.3. I have carefully considered the assessee’s submissions and perused the assessment order. I find merit in the assessee’s submissions since its case is covered in its favour by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd. The gist if the said decisio…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 804/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri L. Bharath, C.A

Section 10B

…in directing the Assessing Officer to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009- 10, wherein interalia reliance was placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Limited 341 ITR 385 (Kar) and allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court has not reached finality as a SLP has been preferred against the said decision. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assess…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Nous Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1369/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 10ASection 147Section 72

…urt, therefore the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has attained finality. 7. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is covered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgment in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., 341 ITR 385 (Karn) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for the AY 2004- 05 vide order dated 6.4.2015. 8. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that the issue prior to the amended provisions of section 10A/10B was decided in favour of the Revenue by the Hon…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore vs. M/S British Engines(I)P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dave, CA

Section 10ASection 10B

…TA Nos.1277 & 1278/Bang/2014 Page 2 of 15 1. “The order of the CIT (A) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385(Kar) and allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction u/s 10B without setting off the losses of the earlier years without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court has not reached finality as a SLP has been p:eferred against the said decision. 3. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the claim of the assessee…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

M/S International Stone India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 539/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

M/S International Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1475/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

M/S |Nternational Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1474/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India P Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 1332/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

M/S. Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1228/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P.K. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…y forward for set-off against income post tax holiday which means that they need not be so set off as mandated in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra). As we have already seen, in Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 (Kar), it was held that even after s. 10A/10B were converted into a “deduction” provision w.e.f 1.4.2001, the benefit of relief u/s 10A/10B is in the nature of “exemption” with reference to “commercial profits” and that as the income of the s. 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income, the question of…

Interwoven Software Services India (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1669/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…f the brought forward depreciation of Rs.1,711,672 while computing the deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., 341 ITR 385 (Karn) however the AO proceed to set off the brought forward depreciation IT(TP)A No.1669/Bang/2012 Page 12 of 14 on the ground that the Revenue has challenged the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out to the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the cas…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Jinitha Chatterjee, Advocate

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 70(1)

…ITA No.1048/Bang/2013. The Hon’ble Tribunal has in the aforesaid orders held that deduction u/s.10B should be allowed before considering brought forward losses. In the ratio of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd 341 ITR 385 a similar principle has been enunciated. “…. the income of 10-A unit has to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee. The income of 10-A unit has to be deducted at source itself and not after computing the gross total income. The total income used in the provisions of section 10-A in this context means the global inco…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Coster India Packaging Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1740/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raodcit, Coster India Packaging Circle-3(1), Pvt. Ltd, Vs. New Delhi 3/138, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Pan:Aafcs6667R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Aruna Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10A

…sessment Year 2001-02 to 2006-07 shall be carry forward and set off as per the provision of the act on completion of Tax Holiday Period. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yoko Gawa India Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn), as well as in case CIT Vs. Tyco Electronics Tools India (P) Ltd. (2012) 205 Taxman 403 (Kan) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the profit for the purpose of deduction under section 10A (also 10AA) should be allowed without setting off unabsorbed loss and depreciation. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay Hi…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…r losses of third STPI unit, brought forward business losses and unabsorbed deprecation. 17. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed as claimed by it and relied on the decision of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., 341 ITR 385 wherein it was held that deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. The CIT(Appeals) relying on the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) directed to the AO to allow the assessee’s claim. Aggrieved, the department is in appeal befo…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Insilica Semiconductors India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Prof. S. Sampath, Director of assessee companyFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 10ASection 154

…ITA.1086 & CO.205/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1086/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2004-05) Income-tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(4), Bangalore ..Appellant v. M/s. Insilica Semiconductors India Pvt. Ltd, C/o. M/s. Resolve Business Services P. Ltd, No.231 – 236, Raheja Arcade, 7th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095 ..Respondent PAN : AABCC9522F Cross objection No.205/Bang/2015 (In I.T.A No.1086/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year : 2004-05) (By the Assessee) Asses…

Sami Labs Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K. Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 92C

…the basis of profits and gains derived by the respective EOU and not on the basis of profits and gains derived by the company from all its undertakings and businesses in the aggregate. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Limited (341 ITR 385) wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the profits eligible for relief u/s. 10B of the Act is to be excluded in computing the income of the assessee. Hence the profit of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s. 10B has to be computed prior to giving effect to the set off provisions under Sec 70 of the Act. The ld. counsel for…

DCIT vs. M/S Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the

ITA 869/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Ramarao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 10A

…under utilization capacity. The CIT(A) further directed that the benefit u/s 10A should be worked out before setting of the brought forward losses following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 154(Kar.) 13. Being aggrieved by this order, the revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 14. The learned Senior DR vehemently argued before us that the CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the comparable of M/s Vishal Information Tech.Ltd (Supra) applying the filter of abnormal profit and M/s Wipro BPO Solutions Ltd. applying the…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2005-06 Pan : Aaacr4849R M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Range 2(3), Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By:Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Respondent By:Sh. N.K. Chand, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2015 Order Per A.D. Jain, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Chand, CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 30Section 40Section 70Section 90Section 91

…mption provisions. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws: “i) “Hindustan Unilever Ltd.”, 325 ITR 102 (Bom. HC) ii) “Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.”, 343 ITR 108 (Bom. HC) iii) Assessee’s Own case being “Yokogawa India Ltd. and other connected appeals”, 341 ITR 385 (Kar. HC) iv) “Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.”, 348 ITR 72 (Bom., HC) v) “Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd.”, 2 ITR (T) 66 (Chennai Tribunal – SB) vi) “Sovika Infotech Limited v. ITO”, 23STO 271 (Mum. ITAT) vii) “Mindtree Consulting Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, (102 TTJ 691) (Bang.ITAT) 17 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 viii) “A.V.Thomas Leathe…

M/S Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Mysore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.448/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Rangsons Electronics P. Ltd, No.347/D1 & 2, Electronics City, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore 570 016 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacr8750R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Dinesh P, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 15.10.2015 Pronounced On : 20.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 10ASection 263

…ITA.448/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.448/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Rangsons Electronics P. Ltd, No.347/D1 & 2, Electronics City, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore 570 016 .. Appellant PAN : AAACR8750R v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Dinesh P, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 15.10.2015 Pronounced on : 20.10.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTA…

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

ITA 1403/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K K Jaiswal, DR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 32(2)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 72(1)(i)

…has erred in denying the set off of brought forward of unabsorbed 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…