Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT

103 TTJ 329Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4272 most cited

What is Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A mere substantial profit does not inherently indicate an arrangement to earn profits beyond ordinary levels to abuse tax concessions under Section 80-IA(9) or (10). The Assessing Officer must provide specific evidence of such an arrangement.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT · 103 TTJ 329 · Section 80IA(10) · Section 80IA(9) · tax concession · ordinary profits · arrangement · joint venture · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 80JJAASection 10AASection 115BBDSection 14ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80IA(10)Section 80IA(8)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expendituresection 115bbdnew employeessection 35(1)(iv)section 80ia(8)captive service providersection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 35(1)strategic investmentsection 35(2ab)section 10aa

Judgments citing Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 2177/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Vs. M/S. Koya & Company Construction Ltd. Central Circle 19, 12-2-831/38/1, 72 Migh, New Delhi. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500 028 (Telangana). (Pan :Aacck3240R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92CSection 92D

…e of business between the assessee and the associated enterprises is so arranged that the business transacted between the produces to the assessee more than the ordinary, profits with the intent of abusing tax concession"  Digital Equipment India Ltd. 1(2006)103 TTJ 329 (Bang)] "In this case, the AO has failed to adduce any evidence or ea on to satisfy the invoking of s. 80-1 (9). First of all, a mere substantial profit does not give rise to a valid view that there could be any arrangement. It is a case of joint venture lzstedI 1an company, w ere all arrangements are open for scrutiny and acceptance not only by…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8 1 (Incharge), Hyderabad vs. Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…resaid to earn more than ordinary profits in tax holidays. The ld.AR relied on the following judgements in this connection: - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer pages 6 to 42 of the caselaw paper book - Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs DCIT (103 TTJ 329) – Refer pages 43 to 52 of the caselaw paper book - CIT vs Hindustan Lever Ltd., Chennai (221 Taxman 71) – Refer pages 53 to 55 of the caselaw paper book - Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetty & Co. vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (42 ITR 788) – Refer pages 56 to 60 of the caselaw paperbook. - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer page…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited, Chennai Tamil Nadu

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…resaid to earn more than ordinary profits in tax holidays. The ld.AR relied on the following judgements in this connection: - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer pages 6 to 42 of the caselaw paper book - Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs DCIT (103 TTJ 329) – Refer pages 43 to 52 of the caselaw paper book - CIT vs Hindustan Lever Ltd., Chennai (221 Taxman 71) – Refer pages 53 to 55 of the caselaw paper book - Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetty & Co. vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (42 ITR 788) – Refer pages 56 to 60 of the caselaw paperbook. - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer page…

Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…resaid to earn more than ordinary profits in tax holidays. The ld.AR relied on the following judgements in this connection: - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer pages 6 to 42 of the caselaw paper book - Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs DCIT (103 TTJ 329) – Refer pages 43 to 52 of the caselaw paper book - CIT vs Hindustan Lever Ltd., Chennai (221 Taxman 71) – Refer pages 53 to 55 of the caselaw paper book - Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetty & Co. vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (42 ITR 788) – Refer pages 56 to 60 of the caselaw paperbook. - ACIT vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (67 SOT 110) – Refer page…

DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…rrived between the parties which resulted in extraordinary profits to the respondent assessee's manufacturing division at Kandla. Further, the ITAT also referred to the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd v Dy CIT [2006] 103 TTJ 329 that has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 5.3.2 The appellant has brought my attention to the service agreement between the appellant and its AE for the relevant period. It is seen that the appellant has been remunerated at cost plus 15%…

Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…rrived between the parties which resulted in extraordinary profits to the respondent assessee's manufacturing division at Kandla. Further, the ITAT also referred to the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd v Dy CIT [2006] 103 TTJ 329 that has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 5.3.2 The appellant has brought my attention to the service agreement between the appellant and its AE for the relevant period. It is seen that the appellant has been remunerated at cost plus 15%…

Eaton Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

ITA 902/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

…, the working of the profits by the Assessing Officer was not approved. The aforesaid action of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. On this aspect, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act are inapplicable in the present case be…

Eaton Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

ITA 590/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

…, the working of the profits by the Assessing Officer was not approved. The aforesaid action of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. On this aspect, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act are inapplicable in the present case be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 43/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 9(1)(vi)

…, the working of the profits by the Assessing Officer was not approved. The aforesaid action of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. On this aspect, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act are inapplicable in the present case bec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 42/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 9(1)(vi)

…, the working of the profits by the Assessing Officer was not approved. The aforesaid action of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. On this aspect, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act are inapplicable in the present case bec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Halliburton Technology India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 277/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Invoking Section 80La( 10) , Of The Act When Bare Reading Of The Provision Does Not Impose Such Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance On A.O.? 3. Whether On The Facts, Circumstances Of The Case And- In Law, Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Interpreting The Words According To The Object Of The Provision Ignoring The Fundamental Principle Of Interpretation Of Stature That Nothing Should Be Added To The Words Used By Legislature? 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Imposing Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance Ignoring The Fact That Section 80Ia(10) Of The Act Is A “Domestic Transfer Pricing” Provision & Proving Tax Avoidance Is Not One

For Appellant: Shri Arvind DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Agarwal
Section 108Section 10ASection 10B(7)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

…. (TS-269-ITAT (2012) 52 SOT 172 (Chen) The phrase “more than ordinary profits” referred in section 80IA(10) is different from “arm‟s length price‟ as referred u/s 92C of the Act. We therefore, set aside the issue to the • Digital Equipment India Ltd. 1(2006)103 TTJ 329 (Bang)] "In this case, the AO has failed to adduce any evidence or reason to satisfy the invoking of s. 80-1 (9). First of all, a mere substantial profit does not give rise to any valid view that there could be any arrangement. It is a case of joint venture listed Indian company, where all arrangements are open for scrutiny and acceptance not on…

Eaton Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3075/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.3075/PUN/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AABCE4323Q बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee by : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.04.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronou…

The DCIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

…es (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 15 ITR (Trib) 393, Tweezerman (India) Pvt Ltd vs ACIT reported in 133 TTJ 308, Weston Knowledge System & Solution (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ITO reported in 52 SOT 120 (URO) and Digital Equipment India Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 103 TTJ 329. 5.2 The assessee further submitted that being a 100% EOU it has to file quarterly and annual reports of sales details with STPI in Software Export Declaration (SOFTEX) Form. After verifying and examining the details, the STPI grants certificate with regard to export, data link and price structure. The STPI while granting certificate has not rais…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…g decisions, the Tribunal held that setting up of new show rooms in an existing business of retail trading is expansion of the business and not extension: i) CIT V. Sakthi Sugars Ltd (2010) 194 Taxman 91 (Mad) ii) Digital Equipment India Ltd V. Dy. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (Bang - ITAT) iii) CIT V. Escorts Finance Ltd (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi) iv) Fition Hotel V. ITO (2008 40-A BCA) 293 - ITAT- Mumbai) v) CIT V. Rex Talkies (1984) 148 ITR 560 (Kar) vi) CIT V. B.V.Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar) vii) CIT V. HEDE Consultancy (P) Ltd (2003) 127 Taxman 597 (Bom) viii) CIT V. Bharat Commercial Corpn…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…g decisions, the Tribunal held that setting up of new show rooms in an existing business of retail trading is expansion of the business and not extension: i) CIT V. Sakthi Sugars Ltd (2010) 194 Taxman 91 (Mad) ii) Digital Equipment India Ltd V. Dy. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (Bang - ITAT) iii) CIT V. Escorts Finance Ltd (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi) iv) Fition Hotel V. ITO (2008 40-A BCA) 293 - ITAT- Mumbai) v) CIT V. Rex Talkies (1984) 148 ITR 560 (Kar) vi) CIT V. B.V.Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar) vii) CIT V. HEDE Consultancy (P) Ltd (2003) 127 Taxman 597 (Bom) viii) CIT V. Bharat Commercial Corpn…

Asst CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zydus Nycomed Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3336/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Acit 15(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4670/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0736D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…iance in this regard was also placed on the decisions in the following other cases 1. Zavata India (P) Ltd. (2013) 31 taxmann.com 147 (Hyderabad). ii. Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. [2010] 133 TTJ 308 (Chennai) iii. Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) iv.Visual Graphics Computing Services (India) P. Ltd. 52 SOT 172 (Chennai) - the AO was not justified to invoke the provision of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 10A(7) so as to reduce the eligible profits. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12 2.4.19 On similar issue in A.Y. 2007-08, taking all the above aspects into con…

Sjr Commodities and Consultancies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, second issue raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4548/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4548/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri S. Abhi Rama

…earned AR also referred to the decision of the co- ordinate bench in Aquila Software Services Hyderabad (P) Ltd. vs. Dy CIT (2015) 174 TTJ 813 (Hyd), ITO vs. Pramukh International (2016) 47 CCH 0653 (Ahd-Trib.) and Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (Bang) to buttress its case for in capacity of Section 80IA(10) of the Act to enable the Revenue to re-compute the profits of eligible unit in the instant case. 9.4 The learned AR thereafter referred to the assessment order on facts and submitted that the allegations labeled by the AO to come to the adverse conclusion are fundamentally erroneous…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2336/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2336/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 PAN: AABCP1209Q Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue by : Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तार…

M/S. A B Knowledge Systems, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 894/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.894/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. AB Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. PAN: AARFA5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sunil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Sanjeev Ghei सुनव…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

…isallowance out of legal and professional expenses cannot be upheld. 25.4 Ld. DR argued that the expenses on account of legal and profession fees have to be amortized as per section 35D. 25.5 As held in the case of Digital Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 103 TTJ 329, we hereby uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 25.6 As a result this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed with regard to Rs. 20 Lacs and that of the Assessee stands dismissed with regard to Rs. 5,36,646/. 26. Issue No. 22: Software expenses – Revenue or Capital: A.Y. 2005-06…

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT (103 TTJ 329) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax