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.

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 385)

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…cts of the appellant in that there was only one STPI unit in that case whereas the appellant had both STPI and Non-STPI units 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Yokogawa, 341 ITR 385 is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, which has been since confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the settled legal position is that the deduction u/s 10A for the STPI unit has to be granted without adjusting the loss of the Non-STPI unit. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in n…

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…cts of the appellant in that there was only one STPI unit in that case whereas the appellant had both STPI and Non-STPI units 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Yokogawa, 341 ITR 385 is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, which has been since confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the settled legal position is that the deduction u/s 10A for the STPI unit has to be granted without adjusting the loss of the Non-STPI unit. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in n…

ACIT, Erode vs. Skm Egg Products Export (India) Limited, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3557/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 10BSection 10B(6)Section 10B(6)(i)Section 10B(8)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

…rovisions of section 10B being pari materia with section 10A of the Act, it would hold good for section 10B as well and therefore, is in favour of the assessee. While holding so, the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 were taken into account. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court given in para 32 are reproduced as under: “The provisions of this sub-section will apply even in the case where an assessee has opted out of section 10A by exercising his option under sub-section (8), As discussed, it is permissible for an assessee to opt in and opt out of s…

ACIT, Erode vs. Skm Egg Products Export (India) Limited, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3556/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 10BSection 10B(6)Section 10B(6)(i)Section 10B(8)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

…rovisions of section 10B being pari materia with section 10A of the Act, it would hold good for section 10B as well and therefore, is in favour of the assessee. While holding so, the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 were taken into account. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court given in para 32 are reproduced as under: “The provisions of this sub-section will apply even in the case where an assessee has opted out of section 10A by exercising his option under sub-section (8), As discussed, it is permissible for an assessee to opt in and opt out of s…

M/S Mindtree Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 424/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 10ASection 11Section 115JSection 12Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.424/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Mindtree Ltd., The Commissioner of Global Village, RVCE Post, Income Tax, Mysuru Road, vs. Large Tax Payers Unit Bangalore – 560 059. (LTU), PAN: AABCM8839K Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by t…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

…29 (Bang,) • Reliq Software (P) Limited V. ITO: 125 ITO 101 (Bang.) Besides the above decisions cited in their written submissions, the appellant's AR also brought to my attention the judgement of Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. : 246 CTR 226 (Kar), wherein this issue has been examined by the Hon. High Court and decided in the favour of the assessee. The AR has argued since the provisions of section 10A are analogous to the provisions of section 10B the ratio laid ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 22 down by the above said judicial pronouncements are applicable to the appellant's…

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Trichur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Trichur

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

ITA 879/COCH/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Feb 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 115J

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.879/Coch/2004 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of St. Mary’s College Road, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Thrissur. Thrissur-680 020. (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri C.Naresh, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal was originally filed by the assessee before the Tribunal and one of the issu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Dhoke

Section 10A

…u/s 10A of the Act before claiming setting off of brought forward losses. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Black & Veath Consulting Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., reported as 341 ITR 385 has held that the deduction u/s 10A of the Act can be claimed before setting off of brought forward losses of non-eligible units. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT & another Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., (supra) has upheld the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court of India while rendering the decision has cons…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Magic Software Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5861/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 14A

…ction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. Decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn) affirmed on this point.” 16. So, following the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Yogokawa India Ltd. (supra), deduction u/s 10A is required to be taken before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, Grounds No.5, 5.1 & 5.2 are determined in favour of the assessee and the AO is directed…

M/S Clear Water Technology Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1419/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Clear Water Technology Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 11(1), No. 39, Srushti, 15Th Main, Bangalore. Rose Garden Road, 5Th Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Aabcc 8515 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…on for computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act 6.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the order of the AO, ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., (341 ITR 385) (Kar) in which it was held that the deduction u/s 10B of the Act is to be computed without setting off brought forward business losses of non section 10B units and to consider carry forward of non section 10B units losses as per the provisions of section 72 of the Act separately. Page 6 of 7 6.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/164/2009HC Karnataka04 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 115JSection 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.164 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING ATTAVARA MANGALURU 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI:K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, MANIPAL 576 104 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI:K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S KING AND PARTRIDGE) 2 THIS INCOME TA…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35

…r on the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.10B of the Act. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. 21. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yogakawa India Ltd, 341 ITR 385 while allowing the claim. However, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, R & D expenditure, considered by the ld. Assessing Officer for set-off, was not relatable to any separate independent unit. Therefore, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Assessing Officer was justified in charging part of such R & D expenses to the inco…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35

…r on the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.10B of the Act. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. 21. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yogakawa India Ltd, 341 ITR 385 while allowing the claim. However, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, R & D expenditure, considered by the ld. Assessing Officer for set-off, was not relatable to any separate independent unit. Therefore, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Assessing Officer was justified in charging part of such R & D expenses to the inco…

DCIT vs. M/S I2 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is

ITA 1239/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: S/Shri Ved Jain & Darpan Kirpalan

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…rounds (supra), Revenue assails the action of the learned CIT(Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under Section 10A of the Act in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa Ltd. (341 ITR 385); by allowing deduction there under for each profit making STPI Unit separately and not for the company as a whole; without appreciating the fact that the Department has not accepted the said decision and has preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. 5.2 The ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard in support…

Jindal Intellicom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3794/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11] Jindal Intellicom Limited Vs. The I.T.O 28, Najafgarh Road Ward – 4(2) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10A

…the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the new ground/additional claim made by the assessee. 3. It is the say of the assessee that the claim arose because of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd 341 ITR 385 which entitled the assessee for exemption u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 4. Facts on record show that the order pronounced by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is dated 09.08.2011 whereas the assessee had filed its return of income on 21.09.2010. Records further show that when the assessee made claim o…

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tenneco Automative India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3226/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3226/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Acit, Vs M/S. Tenneco Automotive India Corporate Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd., Tidel Park, Di South, 9Th Floor, Chennai – 34. 4, Canal Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan: Aabct3125D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.05.2018

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

…duction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. Decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn) affirmed on this point. The principles governing the provisions of section 10A of the Act would equally be applicable to cases governed by the provisions of section 10B in view of the latter provision being pari materia with section 10A of the Act though governing a different situation. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is cl…

ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S R.S. Software(India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1948/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agrwal, Advocte

Section 1Section 10ASection 10BSection 154

…ter setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and accordingly passed a rectification order denying the benefit of claim as computed by the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2013. The CIT(A) by placing reliance in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India ltd. 246 CTR 226 (Kar) held that the deduction u/s 10B of the Act is available before setting off brought forward un ITA No.1948/Kol/2016 M/s R.S.Software (India)Ltd A.Y.2007-08 absorbed depreciation. We find that as rightly pointed out by the Id. AR before us and the order of CIT(A) in holding that deduction u/s 10B of the Act is to be allowed before setting u…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Teksons P.Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 4440/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C Nagendra Prasad & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M C Omi Ningshen (DR)For Respondent: Ms Dinkle Hariya (AR)

Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri C Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant CIT 5(3)(2) M/s Teksons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Kolshet Road, Vs. P B No. 20, Thane 400 601 PAN AABCT0522A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen (DR) Respondent By : Ms Dinkle Hariya (AR) Date of Hearing :01.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2018 O R D E R Per C Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-10, Mumbai, dated 16.03.2016, f…

Cmi Fpe Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 2777/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT AR)&

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos.2777/M/2016 & 2778/M/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) CMI FPE Limited Vs. ACIT LTU, Mumbai World Mehta House, Plot No.64, Trade Centre-1 28th Floor, Road No.13, MIDC, Andheri Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- (E) Mumbai-400093 400005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACF0252G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ketan Ved (AR) Department by: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT AR)& Rajat Mittal (DR) Date of Hearing: 19.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 07.03.2018 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Manthan Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for the asst

ITA 1762/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri P. Dinesha, Advocate

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…CIT (Appeals) – 4, Bangalore vide order dt.14.7.2016 allowed the assessee's appeal, in respect of its claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act by following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Limited (341 ITR 385) (Kar). 3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals)-4, Bangalore dt.14.7.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10, Revenue has preferred this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds : “1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Off…

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

ACIT, Erode vs. Skm Egg Products Export (India) Limited, Erode

ACIT, Erode vs. Skm Egg Products Export (India) Limited, Erode

M/S Mindtree Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Trichur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Trichur

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Magic Software Pvt. Ltd., Noida

M/S Clear Water Technology Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(1), Bangalore

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

DCIT vs. M/S I2 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Jindal Intellicom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tenneco Automative India Private Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S R.S. Software(India) Ltd., Kolkata

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Teksons P.Ltd, Thane

Cmi Fpe Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Manthan Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore