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.

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 274)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore vs. M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 801/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 778/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

DCIT Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Seqent Scientific Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4438/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Nitin Waghmode, Sr. ARFor Respondent: H.P. Mahajani & Nikita Goyal

Section 101BSection 10BSection 115JSection 35

…the Act, learned Authorised Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, in this regard he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Yokogawa India Limited,[2017] 391 ITR 274 (SC). 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also examined the case law cited before us. From the material on record the following factual position emerges. The Mangalore unit in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction under section 10B was initially set up by erstwhile Sequent Scientific L…

Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5938/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas

Section 2Section 255(4)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 45Section 47Section 50Section 55(2)(ab)

…embership card is required to be allowed to the assessee as the cost of acquisition of the shares. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449 and CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274, wherein the Court has held that literal interpretation has to be adopted in interpreting the taxing statute when there is no question of any ambiguity on the interpretation of the provisions. It was argued that on facts, 8 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. there is no ambiguity on interpretation of Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act and hence, the full cos…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4759/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Firstsource Solutions Income Tax Limited 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Mk Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Firstsource Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions Limited Tax 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W) Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…wise instead of aggregating profit/losses of all units. As observed by us hereinabove, the ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention has drawn support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and find substantial force in the contention advanced by the ld. A.R before us. In fact, the issue under consideration had came up for adjudication before a coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e ITAT “F” Bench, Mumbai in the assesses own case i.e Firstsource Solution Ltd. Vs. DCI…

M/S R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6506/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Chaddha, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2011-12] R. Systems International Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T B – 104A, Greater Kailash Circle – 20(2) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCR 9541 B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Chaddha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation by Ld.CIT (A). Admittedly, it has been submitted that this issue stands settled in favour of assessee by decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 and CIT vs JP Morgan services India Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2017) 393 ITR 24 wherein it has been held that deductions under section 10 A, 10 B should be allowed in respect of current year profits of the undertaking before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. In the light of aforestated submissions we dismiss these ground…

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7281/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7250/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 845/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2212/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2211/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…ssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act is a exemption provision and it is clear that deduction contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to any other eligible or non-eligible units or undertaking of the assessee. The benefit of…

C.J.Jewelleries Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5975/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negic.J.Jewelleries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Room No.568, 5Th Floor 401, Block, Seepz, Midc Andheri (East) Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 096 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3607N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)

…essee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing, submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assesee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd. & others (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC), where the procedure of determination of an eligible profits for claiming deduction u/s 10A has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AR, further submitted that as per, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court eligible profit of an undertaking shall be determined without setting off of brought forward business loss and unabso…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The Tribunal in its order for the A.Y. 2007-08 has discussed this issue threadbare and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 291 CTR 1 (SC) has held that the deduction should be allowed qua the eligible undertaking standing on its own without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible unit or undertakings. To put it simply, the profits of the eligible units should be considered on standalone basis. Following the view, we determine the issue accordingly. 38 and IT(TP) A.No…

ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Praxis Interactive Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4637/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Praxis Interactive R.No.554, 5Th Floor Services Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 607/608, Multi Storied M.K.Road, Building, Seepz, Andheri Mumbai – 400 020 (E), Mumbai-400096 Pan/Gir No.Aaecp5196M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 72

…hout setting it off against the income exigible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. We find that similar views were endorsed by the Hon’ble 4 M/s. Praxis Interactive Services Pvt Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 619 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd – 391 ITR 274 (SC). Hence respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. The Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the revenue are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is…

M/S Embassy Property Development Ltd vs. Addl..C.I.T

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

ITA 205/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR-II)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…ence this ground of appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 19. 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 elig…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incomne Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3107/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth

Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 70Section 71Section 72

…Assessing Officer was one of the possible views and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be erroneous in law. Further, the learned representative placed reliance on the 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 explained that consequent to the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2001, the benefit prescribed in Section 10A of the Act is in the nature of a deduction, and not an exemption; so, however, the deduction is to be allowed in computing the gross total income of eligible undertaking under Chapter IV and not at stage of computation of t…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी इंट"री रामा राव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर 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 Sa…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी इंट"री रामा राव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर 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 Sa…

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.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore vs. M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore

M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore

DCIT Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Seqent Scientific Ltd, Thane

Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

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

M/S R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

C.J.Jewelleries Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 5(1)(2), Mumbai

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Praxis Interactive Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

M/S Embassy Property Development Ltd vs. Addl..C.I.T

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incomne Tax-2, Mumbai

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

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