ITO v. E-Infotech Ltd.

124 TTJ 176Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#12084 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsstpi unitconvertible foreign exchangesection 194jtax benefitcomputer softwarebusiness expediencysection 80ibicdssection 10aasection 40(a)(i)section 10a

Judgments citing ITO v. E-Infotech Ltd.

M/S. Sharnam Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S.Sharnam Realities P.Ltd. Pr.Cit-4 411A, Neelkanth Palace B Vs Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Road Satellite 380 015. Pan : Aaics 9152 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Ar & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…ty valuation of the property. He relied on the following case laws in this regard: • Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 117 IGTR 1 (SC); • Nitin P. Shah alias Modi Vs. DCIT, 276 ITR 411 (Guj) • APMC Vs. ITO, 355 ITR 384 (Guj) • ITO Vs. E-Infochips Ltd., 124 TTJ 176 (Ahd); • Gujarat Information Technology Funds, 45 SOT 529 (Ahd); 11 • PCIT Vs. BA Research, (2016) 240 Taxman 443 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Quintiles Research (India) P.Ltd., 429 ITR 4 (Kar) He, therefore, contended that the ld.Pr.CIT’s finding of error based on his finding and questioning the valuation of the stamp duty authority was incorrect 16. In vi…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…041/Ban/2016 & IT(TP)A. No. 1228/Ban/2016 adverse action by SEZ Authorities, no presumption could be drawn that assessee violated any requirements under the scheme. We refer to decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ITO vs E-Infotech Ltd reported in (2009) 124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction. In this case the status…

M/S.Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…041/Ban/2016 & IT(TP)A. No. 1228/Ban/2016 adverse action by SEZ Authorities, no presumption could be drawn that assessee violated any requirements under the scheme. We refer to decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ITO vs E-Infotech Ltd reported in (2009) 124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction. In this case the status…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…041/Ban/2016 & IT(TP)A. No. 1228/Ban/2016 adverse action by SEZ Authorities, no presumption could be drawn that assessee violated any requirements under the scheme. We refer to decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ITO vs E-Infotech Ltd reported in (2009) 124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction. In this case the status…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10B

…that in the absence of any adverse action by SEZ authorities, no presumption could be drawn that assessee violated any requirements under the scheme. Reliance was placed on the Ahmedabad Tribunal decision is case of ITO vs. E-Infotech Ltd. reported in [2000] 124 TTJ 176 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction. In this case, the status of tax bear as hundred percent EOU and under ST…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…al indiscipline. In support of this contention he relied on Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision dtd. 07-07-204,the Supreme Court decision cited at l 17 ITR 1, the Gujarat High Court's decisions cited at 276 ITR 411 & 355 ITR 384 &Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision cited 124 TTJ 176 & 45 SOT 529. 3.4 As regards the A.O.'s finding that the appellant infringed SEZ Rules by claiming lease rentals from sister-concern DPCL, it was contended that the DPCL had made application to the Development Commissioner for approval to set up unit in the SEZ on 29-03- 2011;approval was granted on 26-06-201; the office of the Development Commis…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…al indiscipline. In support of this contention he relied on Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision dtd. 07-07-204,the Supreme Court decision cited at l 17 ITR 1, the Gujarat High Court's decisions cited at 276 ITR 411 & 355 ITR 384 &Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision cited 124 TTJ 176 & 45 SOT 529. 3.4 As regards the A.O.'s finding that the appellant infringed SEZ Rules by claiming lease rentals from sister-concern DPCL, it was contended that the DPCL had made application to the Development Commissioner for approval to set up unit in the SEZ on 29-03- 2011;approval was granted on 26-06-201; the office of the Development Commis…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…adverse action by SEZ Authorities, no presumption could be drawn that assessee violated any requirements under the scheme. We refer to decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ITO vs E-Infotech Ltd reported in IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 (2009) 124 TTJ 176, to support the aforestated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction. In this case the status o…

ITO v. E-Infotech Ltd. (124 TTJ 176) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax