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

290 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (391 ITR 274), 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 10A, Section 10AA, Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 10B, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

391 ITR 274Supreme Court of India2017#271 most cited

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

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

290

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. · Section 10A · Section 10AA · Section 70 · set off of losses · eligible unit deduction · profits of SEZ unit · losses of other units · computation of 10A deduction · set off losses of 10AA units · gross total income

Also reported as

77 Taxmann.com 41291 CTR 1244 Taxmann 273

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 10AA Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 10B Section 143(1)Section 115JB Section 139(5)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 70 section 10a set off of losses section 10b section 10aa section 80hh unabsorbed depreciation section 80hhc computer software tested party eligible business gross total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

ACIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M Model Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4935/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10ASection 1OSection 2(45)Section 70Section 80I

…n dealt with the ITAT in the aforesaid order. Learned counsel further submitted that this issue is also now covered in favour of the assessee by following case laws:-  Principal CIT Vs. Makino India Pvt. Ltd. (393 ITR 291 (SC)  CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (391 ITR 274)(SC) 6. Per contra learned Departmental Representative would not dispute the above proposition. 7. Upon careful consideration we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case as under:- “8. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by foll…

Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalaa/w Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…red rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen, while deciding identical issue arising in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008–09, the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC) has allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act unit–wise. The observations of the Tribunal in his regard are as under:– “58. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The dispute between the assessee and the Department is limited to the issue as to whether deduction under section 10A of th…

ITO vs. M/S Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed; while that of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 842/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…ence this ground of appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 28. At the time of hearing it was agreed by the parties before us that this issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 by its order dated 16.12.2016 and in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the following view :- “That from a reading of the relevant provisions of section 10A it is more than clear that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligi…

Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed; while that of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Sterling Commerce Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…ence this ground of appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 36. At the time of hearing it was agreed by the parties before us that this issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 by its order dated 16.12.2016 and in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the following view :- • That from a reading of the relevant provisions of section 10A it is more than clear that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligi…

M/S Snecma Hal Aerospace Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 432/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…t forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation while computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the contention of the assessee is supported by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2017)(391 ITR 274). Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of the AO for examining the claim of the assessee by duly considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above. 15. Ground No.10 relates to the method of allowing set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. This issue also needs to be restored to the file of the AO,…

M/S. Flexituff International Ltd., Dhar vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ilders & Construction Co.Ltd VS. CIT (2016) 29 ITJ 76 (TRIB. – AGRA) l. Uttam Construction Company VS. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 28 ITJ 121 (TRIB. - RAIPUR) m. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr V/s. M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd. 2016- TIO-228-SC-IT 391 ITR 274 n. Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. vis. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2019- TIOL-542-ITAT-AHM. o. M/s. Scintillating Jewellery v/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai 2019- TIOL-S70-ITA T -MUM. p. M/s. Bharoomal and Company Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai. 2019- TIOL-602-ITAT -MUM. q. Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt Ltd V/s…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 12(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2258/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodit(Tp)A. No.2258/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Firstsource Solutions Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Paradigm B, Income Tax, Circle- 12(2)(1), Mindspace New Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Malad (West), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K. Das, D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…in its hands. Insofar the part disallowance of deduction under Sec. 10AA by the A.O was concerned, it was averred by the ld. A.R that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogama India Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). It was submitted by him that in the said order it was held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that deduction under Sec.10A shall be allowed qua unit wise instead of aggregating profit/losses of all units. Further, the ld. A.R submitted that the issue was also covered by the consolidated order of the Tribunal passed in the assesses own case for A.Y.…

ITO, Trivandrum vs. Shri Gopinath Muthukad, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection

ITA 349/COCH/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80ASection 80R

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.349/Coch/2009 Assessment Year : 2003-04 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prof. Gopinath Muthukad, Ward-1(4), Trivandrum. Muthukad Magical Entertainers Poojappura, Trivandrum. [PAN:AEGPM 4230E] . (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) C.O. No. 32/Coch/2009 I.T.A. No.349/Coch/2009 Assessment Year : 2003-04 Prof. Gopinath Muthukad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Muthukad Magical Entertainers Ward-1(4), Trivandrum. Poojappura, Trivandrum. [PAN:AEGPM 4230E] (Assessee-Appellant) (…

Ibm Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6471/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 6471/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Birla Tower, 1St Floor, 25 Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv., Sh. Suvinay Kr. Dash, Adv. & Sh. Parichay Solanki, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Drp-I, New Delhi Dated 03.09.2012 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. Assessment & Reference To Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law A) The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax — 11(1) [‘Dcit” Or 'Ao’ / Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Tpo-I (2)], New Delhi ['Acit' Or Tpo'] Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition Of Inr 314,525,713 To The Total Income Of The Appellant On 2 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services India Pvt. Ltd. Account Of Adjustment To The Arm'S Length Price With Respect To Information Technology (‘It’) Enabled Services Of The Appellant With Its Associated Enterprises Other Than Ibm World Trade Corporation (‘Ibm Wtc’). B) The Ao/Tpo Erred In Law & On Facts As He Failed To Establish That The Appellant Shifted Profits Outside India.” 3. This Ground Of Appeal Is General In Nature & Hence Does Not Require Separate Adjudication By Us.

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 920(2)

…ulated at Rs.1,56,83,65,810/- after adjusting the loss of Kolkata unit from the profit of other eligible units. 17. Before us, the AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 has held as under: “16. From a reading of the relevant provisions of Section 10A it is more than clear to us that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is give…

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

…laim of assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case. The ld.A.R. further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., reported as 391 ITR 274. 5. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Dhoke representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld.D.R. in support of his submissions placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No.07 dt.16.07.2013. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and perused the orders of authorities below. The only issue aris…

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

…is required to be computed after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.34,99,523/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,05,013/-. However, this controversy has already been set at rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Yogokawa India Ltd. – 391 ITR 274 (SC) and CIT vs. JP Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. – 393 ITR 24 (SC). Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Yogokawa India Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing that in case of 100% export oriented undertaking, deduction is to be granted by computing gross total income of eligible 5 undertaking under Chapter IV and no…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Elxsi. Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 1517/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 155

…s of another eligible 10A unit against the profits of eligible 10A unit for the purpose of computing exemption u/s 10A. The decision of the ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.(2017)(391 ITR 274(SC) wherein it has been held as follows: “13. The retention of Section 10A in Chapter III of the Act after the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2000 would be merely suggestive and not determinative of what is provided by the Section as amended, in contrast to what was provided by the un-amended Section. The true and correct purport and effect o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Elxsi. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 155

M/S Tata Elxsi Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1222/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 155

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Ltd(Erstwhile Excellence Data Research Private Limited), Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2227/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Income-Tax, Circle – 17(1), Excellence Data Research Pvt. Hyderabad. Ltd.), Chennai Pan – Aabce 4933C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

…n under section 10A of the Act ought to be set-off prior to the grant of deduction under section 10A of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd (391 ITR 274) in relation to the stage at which the deduction under section 10A shall be allowed. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in stating that the principle laid down in the case of CIT vs Mis Yokogawa India Ltd (391 ITR 274) is not relevant to the present set of facts of the Appellant.” 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the AO was…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Subex Ltd

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/186/2011HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260

…n favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid Judgment. 4. The third substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER vs. YOKOGOWA INDIA LTD., reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). Following the said Judgment, the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The fourth substantial question of law is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD., reported in [2018] 403 ITR 453(KARNATAKA…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Subex Ltd

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/184/2011HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260

…in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid Judgment. 4. The third substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER vs. YOKOGOWA INDIA LTD., reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). Following the said Judgment, the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No.4 has become infructuous. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. The appeal is disposed off. SD/- SD/- J…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Subex Ltd

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/185/2011HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 10ASection 260

…ur of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid Judgment. 4. The third substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER vs. YOKOGOWA INDIA LTD., 5 reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). Following the said Judgment, the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The fourth substantial question of law is covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD., reported in [2018] 403 ITR 453(KARN…

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

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

ITA 387/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv

Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

…of the Act excluded the brought forward losses and depreciation. Thereafter, the matter reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in [2017] 291 CTR 0001 (SC) & 391 ITR 274 directed the Ld.AO to grant the benefit of deduction u/s.10B of the Act without setting off of the brought forward losses of the earlier years. However, the Ld.AO while passing the giving effect order u/s.150 of the Act dated 16.08.2017 excluded the brought forward depreciation from the profits of the assessee company for the purpose of grant…