Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishing (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Vs. Acit, Range-15, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Dcit, Circle-15(1), Room No. Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, 412, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Department By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order

…The assessee relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Maditap Specialities Private Limited Vs. Additional CIT in ITA No. 6835/Mum/2010 and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Vs. DCIT, reported in (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom.), however, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TEI Technologies Private Limited in ITA 347/2011 & 2067/2010, wherein, the section 10A has been held essentially and in substance held as exemption provision. Accordingly, he held that provisions of sect…

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Ltd., Bengalore vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…sion of Karnataka High Court vs ACIT v.Yokogava India Limited, (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karnataka). Bombay High Court has also reached the same conclusion though for different reasons in Hindustan Lever Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bombay). These two decisions were noticed and their final finding approved by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.TEI Technologies Private Limited in ITA Nos.347/2011 and 2067/2010 decided on 27.08.2012. In view of the aforesaid position, no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”…

M/S Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

…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. Dy. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom) 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 for deduction…

Nec Hcl System Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…horities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act. 13. Earlier to the above circular,it has been held by Honourable Bombay high court in case of Hindustan lever Limited V DCIT 325 ITR 102 (Bom) thatloss in eligible unit could be set off against the profits of the business. It is also noted in the circular at para No. one that It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the provisions of 10A/10AA/10B/10BA of the Income-tax Act, with regard to applicability of Chapter IV of the Act and set off and carry forward of losses, ar…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -II vs. Kei Industries Limited

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

…s of section 70." 6. The revenue argues that the decision of the ITAT cannot be sustained. It was argued that Galaxy Surfactants (supra) noted the previous ruling of the same High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom) and yet did not give much importance to the fact that unlike other provisions, Section 10B income was exempt and did not fall within the description of “income” which could be assessed or enter the field of taxation for the relevant year. It was submitted that CIT v. Himatasingike Side Ltd. 286 ITR 255, the Karnataka High Court decisio…