How many judgments cite Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT?

62 judgments on BharatTax cite Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (325 ITR 102), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT

325 ITR 102High Court2010#1865 most cited

What is Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The deduction under Section 10A/10B is a deduction, not an exemption, and must be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. For this purpose, commercial profits mean profits without adjustment of depreciation as per the Income Tax Act.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 10A · Section 10B · Section 32 · Section 80AB · deduction vs exemption · commercial profits · depreciation adjustment · computation of business profits · export profits · computer software

Also reported as

19 Taxmann.com 141

Issues it is cited on

section 33b section 32(2)convertible foreign exchange section 80ab section 32a section 80h section 80hh section 80c section 80hhc section 33 computer software section 10a

Judgments citing Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…siness or profession' and as a necessary corollary, losses of the STP unit cannot be ignored at the threshold. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs DCIT: [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bom) wherein the Court categorically held that loss of one of the four eligible units could be set off against the normal business income of the assessee. Further, the assessee referred to the observations of the Court 32 ITA Nos.- 5624/del/2010 & 5465/Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd. wherein it held that by Finance Act, 2000, the provisions of s…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…h Courts have already dealt with this proposition that commercial profits mean profits without adjustment of depreciation as per income tax act earlier also. In this regard, he referred to the following case laws:- 1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC) 325 ITR 102 Plastiblends India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Mumbai (SC) 398 ITR 568 2. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (SC) 391 ITR 274 3. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134 4. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762 5. 6. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341 7. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

…h Courts have already dealt with this proposition that commercial profits mean profits without adjustment of depreciation as per income tax act earlier also. In this regard, he referred to the following case laws:- 1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC) 325 ITR 102 2. Plastiblends India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Mumbai (SC) 398 ITR 568 3. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (SC) 391 ITR 274 4. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134 5. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762 6. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341 7. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…High Courts have already dealt with this proposition that commercial profits mean profits without adjustment of depreciation as per income tax act earlier also. In this regard, he referred to the following case laws:- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC) 325 ITR 102 1. Plastiblends India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Mumbai (SC) 398 ITR 568 2. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (SC) 391 ITR 274 3. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134 4. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762 5. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341 6. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. This was emphasized in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court while construing the provisions of Section 10B in Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (2010) 325 ITR 102 at Para 24. The submission of the Revenue placed its reliance on the literal reading of Section 10A under which a deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of ten consecutive Assessment Years is to be allowed from the total income of the assessee. T…

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R

Section 10ASection 139

…s in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. This was emphasized in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, while construing the provisions of Section 10B, in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/MH/0417/2010: [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bom.) at paragraph 24. The submission of the Revenue placed its reliance on the literal reading of Section 10A under which a deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of ten consecutive assessment years is to be allowed from the total income of the…

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

…der other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in section 70,72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. Ld. AR further relied on decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 102) wherein the High Court has held that the assessee Page No. | 5 ITA NO. 2908 & 4108/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2003-04) M/s. Zensor Technologies Ltd was entitled to deduction in respect of the profits of the three eligible units while the loss sustained by the fourth unit could be set off against normal business income. Furthermore, Ld. AR submitted that t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHIFFER AND MENEZES INDIA PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Schiffer & Menezes Income Tax, Circle-1(1), India (P) Ltd. Vs. Panaji, Goa Cmm Building, Rua De Ourem, Panaji, Goa (Pan: Aaccm0106E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P. R. V. Raghavan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide

For Appellant: Shri P. R. V. Raghavan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 72Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…anterior to the application of provisions of section 72 dealing with carried forward and set off of business loss. 5.1. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindusthan Unilever Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (Bom.). Based on the decisions of the above cases, it was submitted that a distinction has been made by the legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VIA. Section 80A(1) of the Act stipulates that in computing the total income of an assess…

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4727/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 1O

…the coordinate bench dated 25th of may 2011 for assessment year 2006 – 2007 is upheld. While deciding the above issue the honourable High Court also considered its own decision in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2010) 325 ITR 102. The issue also reached before the honourable Supreme Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005 – 06 in CA number 8498 of 2013 [known as CIT V Yokogawa India Limited][391 ITR 274] wherein it was decided in favour of the assessee. The learned departmental representative could not controvert the above fact. In view of this ground number…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…further contended that the term "loss" is different from the "expenditure" referred to section 14A of the Act and that, therefore, section 14A is not applicable to the present case. The following case laws have been relied on : "i. "Hindustan Unilever Ltd.", 325 ITR 102 (Bom. HC) ii. "Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.", 343 ITR 108 (Bom. HC) iii. Assessee's Own case being "Yokogawa India Ltd. and other connected appeals", 341 ITR 385 (Kar. HC) iv) "Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.", 348 ITR 72 (Bom.HC) v) "Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd.", 2 ITR (T) 66 (Chennai Tribunal - SB). vi) "Navin Bharat Industri…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

ITAT/378/2017HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 112Section 115WSection 260A

…ompany would be charged on Rs.40 for income-tax and on Rs.50 for additional income-tax on proportionate basis.” The third judgment relied upon by Mr. Majumdar is in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax(1), Mumbai, reported in 325 ITR 102 (Bom). The question which cropped up for consideration in the aforesaid case was whether Rule 8 was applicable to the losses suffered by a tea company. The question was answered in the affirmative. The view expressed by Bombay High Court to be 7 precise is as follows: “ 13. Now, what rule 8 postulates is the process of segregating the income d…

TWIN EARTH SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RG 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6604/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Twin Earth Dy.Cit, Securities P. Ltd., Range - 4(2)(1), 301/302 Prime Plaza, Room No.642, Vs. 38-A, S.V. Road, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 054 M.K. Road, Pan: Aabct3066F Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54ESection 88E

…the subject matter of re- opening (i.e. claim of Sec 54EC of the Act) is rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction as has been held in the decision namely Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. DCIT- [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bombay). 12. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of AO and Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that in this case the of the assessee has apparently been re-opened after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year and the…

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITA/377/2012HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 234BSection 260Section 260ASection 70

…LTD.,’, 391 ITR 274 (SC), ‘CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD’, 341 ITR 385 (KARNATAKA), ‘CIT VS. GALAXY SURFACANTS LTD’, 343 ITR 108 (BOMBAY), ‘MINDTREE CONSULTING (P) LTD VS. ACIT’, 102 TTJ 691 (BANGALORE), ‘HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DCIT’, 325 ITR 102 (BOMBAY), ‘CIT VS. BALCK AND VEATCH CONSULTING (P) LTD’, 348 ITR 72 (BOMBAY), ‘CIT VS. SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD’, 374 ITR 520 (BOMBAY), ‘CIT VS. CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD’, 354 ITR 29 (KARNATAKA), ‘CIT VS. MINDTREE CONSULTING LTD. IN ITA NO.797/2006 DATED 09.08.2011 and BOARD CIRCULAR 7/DV/2013 DATED 16.07.2013. 8 5. On the…

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/87/2012HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…, ‘CBDT CIRCULAR NO.495 DATED 22.09.1987, ‘CIT VS. SRF LTD.’, (2012) 342 ITR 106 (DELHI), ‘R& B FLCON (A) PTY. LTD. V. CIT’, (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), ‘CIT V. WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES’, (2008) 297 ITR 17, ‘HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DCIT’, (2010) 325 ITR 102, ‘ CIT V. PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS (P) LTD.’, (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), 10 ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD.’, (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD. V. ADIT (INVESTIGATION)’, (1998) 233 ITR 0736 (KARN.), ‘CIT VS. HARPRASAD AND CO PVT. LTD.,’, (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC), ‘APOLLO TYRES LTD. VS. CIT…

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)

…Act. In support of the above the assessee relied upon the following. 1. Board's Circular dated 16th July, 2013 wherein the Departmental view has been communicated. 2. Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom.). ITA Nos.1351 & 1352, 1373 & 1374/B/2015 Page 25 of 26 3. Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd — 348 ITR 72(Bom.) and Ganesh Polychem Ltd. – 35 Taxman.com 446(Bom.) 4. Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2012) 19 taxman.com141(Bom.).…

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1351/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)

M/S. ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…of initiating the re- 5 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. assessment proceedings. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., vs., DCIT [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bom.) in which it was held that “power to rectify an Order of assessment under section 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in order of assessment. The A.O. must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and sub…

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…lly ignored, income (both positive and negative) from a deduction provision enters into computation of income and is first chargeable to tax and then deductible to the extent provided. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 102/191 Taxman 119 quashed the reopening of an assessment on the ground that the loss of eligible unit was wrongly set off against the normal business income of the assessee by noticing that section 10B, as it now stands, is not a provision in the nature of an exemption but provides for a deduction and the loss sustained by the unit eligible 9 Netes…

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4