Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT

325 ITR 102High Court2010#1845 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.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 33bsection 32(2)convertible foreign exchangesection 80absection 32asection 80hsection 80hhsection 80csection 80hhcsection 33computer softwaresection 10a

Judgments citing Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT

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…

Elitecore Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1356/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1356/Ahd/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Elitecore Technologies Pvt. Vs. Pr. CIT-2, Ltd., 904 Silicon Tower, Ahmedabad. BH Pariseema Building, Off CG road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN No. AAACE 6815 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 12.06.2019 04.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by…

Renfro India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1895/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

…curred in Nashik unit should not be set off against the Pune unit for computing deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of Pune unit. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (325 ITR 102) and CIT v/s Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (348 ITR 72). We notice that the co–ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (supra) has taken the view that the deduction u/s 10B is allowable each undertaking wise and hence the loss incurred in one eligible unit should not be set off against the income from other eligi…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…. The omission to disallow the same was mere computational error which should have been rectified u/s 154 rather than to reopen the assessment. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. V/s DCIT [325 ITR 102] for the said submissions. 4.1.3 Regarding deduction u/s 35DDA, it has been submitted that the issue of deduction was duly examined by Ld. AO in the original assessment proceedings. No new tangible material came to the possession of Ld. AO ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 which would justify triggering of reassessment proceedings and t…

Smt. Kiran Kamra, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4904/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. Ito, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54Section 54E

…Cello Plast, (2012) 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.); (ii) Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (2017) 87 taxmann.com 228 (Kar); (iii) CIT vs. Dr. Arvind S. Phake, 401 ITR 96 (Bom); and (iv) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom). 8. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that various courts and Tribunals are taking a liberal view for granting exemption u/s 54EC where the respective assessees have invested in the specific bonds beyond the period of six months. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee in the instant case had initially invested the…

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Avtec Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2775/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Senior DR
Section 10ASection 80I

…r deduction u/s 10AA, was not eligible to be set off against the profits from other units. However, ld. CIT (A) granted the relief to the assessee by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT – 325 ITR 102 (Bom.), ITAT, Bangalore Bench in Mindtree Consulting P. Ltd. vs. ACIT – 102 TTJ 691, Navin Bharat Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT – (2004) 90 ITD 1 (Mum.)(TM), ITAT, Delhi Bench in Honeywell International (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 108 TTJ 924 (Del.) and CBDT Circular No.7/DV/2013 dated 16.07.2013, that the provisions of section 10A is not in the nat…

Faurecia Interior Systems India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 781/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 92C(2)

…ct which specifically provide the mechanism of computing deduction from 'profits derived by the undertaking'. The same is also squarely covered by the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited v. DCIT and UOI (325 ITR 102). Even the format of the return of income (schedule CYLA and BFLA of Form ITR 6) contemplates adjustment of losses only after availing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the Bangalore Tribunal judgment in case of KPIT Cummins Infosystems (P) Ltd v. ACIT (120 TTJ 956) . While the CBDT Circular re…

Ananda Paul, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

…ed, is not urged and argued by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that section 154 of the Act is applicable and can be invoked to make addition on ground No.2. 19. Decision of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DY CIT [2010] 325 ITR 102, which opines that when section 15 applies, reopening under section 147 of the Act should not be resorted to, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Gujarat High Curt in Damodar H Shah v. Asst. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 774 and Calcutta High Curt in Berger Paints I…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Icici Onesource Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2658/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 154

…Solutions Limited deduction u/s 10A shall be allowed qua unit wise instead of aggregating profits/losses of all eligible units. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs. DCIT (325 ITR 102) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (391 ITR 274). Accordingly we direct the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A qua unit-wise. 37. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.4752/Mum/2009 challenging the order dated 11-06-2009 passed by Ld CIT(A)-V, Mumbai for assessment year 2004-05 u/s…

Blue Star Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5380/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Blue Star Infotech Ltd. Dcit Circle-6(1), 8Th Floor, The Great Oasis, Plot No. Mumbai. D-13, Midc, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacb6385J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Blue Star Infotech Ltd. DCIT Circle-6(1), 8th Floor, The Great Oasis, Plot No. Mumbai. D-13, MIDC, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACB6385J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.S. Tiwari with Ms. : Rutuja N. Pawar (AR) Revenue by : Shri T.A. Khan (DR) Date of hearing : 14.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Incom…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 908/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 70

…om eligible units is not available for set off against the income of non eligible units. He also tried to draw support from the CBDT’s circular no. 7 of 2003 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 325 ITR 102. He accordingly, disallowed the adjustment of loss of eligible units from the profit of non eligible units. 3. Before the Learned CIT(Appeals) a detailed submission were made by the assessee explaining the entire provision of section 10B and as to why it is not an exemption provision but dealing with the deductions eligible for an assessee. The…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…ded, embodies a clear legislative intent to alter the nature of Sec. l0A from one providing for exemption to one providing for deductions. Reference was also made to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd -vs.- DCIT (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom) wherein it has been held that Sec. 10B as it now stands is not a provision in the nature of 'exemption' but provides for 'deduction'. Hence the loss sustained by the said unit can be set off against the profit of the non eligible unit. Similar view has also been taken in the case of:- - CIT -vs.- Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 108 (…

Visual Graphics Computing Services India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Co Cle III (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 28

ITA 2340/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2340/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant Thakkar, Adv &
Section 10ASection 144CSection 234BSection 234C

…. Lower authorities had denied the set off treating the STPI unit as a stand alone one. The issue in our opinion is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. DCIT 325 ITR 102. Para 24 of this judgment is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has while reopening the assessment ex facie proceeded on the erroneous premise that section 10B is a provision in the nature of an exemption. Plainly, section 10B as it stands is not a p…

Cambridge Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1469/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT, DR-I
Section 10Section 10ASection 144C(5)

…Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal decision in the case of Synova innovative Technologies Private Limited [ITA No. 381/Bang/07 dated May 2, 2008] c. Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Others (2010) [325 ITR 102] and d. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Machinery Tools Maintenance Ltd vs. CIT (1975) [98ITR 119]. 07. We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, we note that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India (2012) [341 ITR 385] held as under : “31. After making all such computations the assessee woul…

Watson Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 994/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 994/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Ms. Malathi Shridharan (CIT)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…while simultaneously 5 Watson Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2010-2011 claiming full deduction of profits of eligible units. This contention could further be fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs DCIT (2010 325 ITR 102) where in similar situation, the Hon’ble court held that assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 10B in respect of profits of three eligible units and loss of fourth eligible unit could be set off against normal business income. Hence, any income arising from eligible units could get full deduction whereas the losses sustained in eligible un…

ITO 8(2)2, Mumbai vs. Kiara Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5040/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5040/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) I.T.O. – 8(2)-2, M/S Kiara Jewellery Pvt. बनाम/ R. No. 212/216A, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 180, 1St Floor, M.K. Road, Sdf Vi, Mumbai – 400 020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aacck4789M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Dhondial
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 70Section 71Section 72

…, which after amendments by Finance Act, 2000 are in the form of deduction from the gross total income of the assessee and not exemption.The said view is supported by decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited v. DCIT (2010) 325 ITR 102(Bom.HC). Thus, the ITA 5040/Mum/2014 4 A.O. held that the concession u/s 10AA of the Act is in the form of deduction and not exemption. Thus, the Revenue is contemplating set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years of the eligible unit from the current years’ profit of eligible unit before allowing de…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Asb International P. Ltd, Ambernath

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7034/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Bora
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 72

…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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5270/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 5270/Del/2012 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Income Tax Officer Evaluesserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 701, Guru Apartments, Ward-11(2),Room No. 321, Sector-14, Rohini, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Gir / Pan : Aace8014F (Respondent) & Co No. 462/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5270/Del/2012) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Evaluesserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 701, Guru Apartments, Vs. Ward-11(2), New Delhi Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi Gir/Pan:Aace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2016 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: 1. The Present Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/07/2012 Passed By Ld.Cit (A)-20, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Department Appeal Following Grounds Have Been Raised.

For Appellant: Mr. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10A

…assessing officer, who made an addition of Rs.16,78,71,339/-. Section 10 A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption, as emphasised by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 325 ITR 102, while dealing with provisions of section 10 B of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 72 has held as under: “The submission of the revenue placed its reliance on the literal reading of section 10 A under which a deduction of such profit and gains as are derived…

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Health Prime Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Dcit, Range 8(2), R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Health Prime Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 303, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093 Pan: Aabch 3697Q .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohhamed RizwanFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 37(1)Section 43A

…ion:- “Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a decision and not an exemption. This was emphasised in a judgment of a Division Bench of this court, while construing the provisions of section 10B, in Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (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…