Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT, SR-5, Pune

110 ITD 198Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#13570 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 56(2)

Judgments citing Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT, SR-5, Pune

CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 485/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankul Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…he case laws cited are. 1) Controls & Switchgear Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax, HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2011) 16 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi). (para 13 & 14) 2) Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income - tax SR-5, Pune (2018) 110 ITD 198 (Pune) ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A' (para 4.1 to 4.3) 36 Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. 3) Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 16, New Delhi ITAT DELHI BENCH 'E' (2012) 20 taxmann.com 31 (Delhi). (para 13 to 16)” 6. The arguments of the ld. DR have been provided to the ld. AR who inturn su…

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND WITCHGEARS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 387/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar MathurFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 801A(5)Section 80I

…ard, reliance is place on the following judicial precedents: (i) Microlabs Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 160 (Kar.) (ii) ACIT vs. Goldmine Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 113 ITD 209 (Ahmd.) (SB) (iii) Khinvasara Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2008) 110 ITD 198 (Pun.) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd (2021) 127 taxmann.com 69 (SC) 8.12In all the above mentioned decisions, it has been categorically held by the various judicial authorities that profits and gains from the eligible business, for the purpose of determination of quantum of deduction u/s.801A of the Act, has to be computed considering that suc…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1790/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

…d in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of its income of the eligible unit u/s 80IA(5) without adjusting the notional brought forward losses of earlier years, ignoring Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of Khinvasara Investments Pvt. Ltd. 110 ITD 198 and ITAT Spl. Bench Ahmedabad in ACIT Vs Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 116 ITJ (A'bad) 705 ? 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal" 18. The crux of the grievance of the Revenue is with regard to whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction on its income u/s.80IA(5) of the Act. 19. T…

M/S ADVIK HI-TECH PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1578/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

…d in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of its income of the eligible unit u/s 80IA(5) without adjusting the notional brought forward losses of earlier years, ignoring Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of Khinvasara Investments Pvt. Ltd. 110 ITD 198 and ITAT Spl. Bench Ahmedabad in ACIT Vs Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 116 ITJ (A'bad) 705 ? 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal" 18. The crux of the grievance of the Revenue is with regard to whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction on its income u/s.80IA(5) of the Act. 19. T…

ACCENT PHARMA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, in ITA No

ITA 140/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.140 & 141/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Accent Pharma, Vs The Acit, 15, Gopalakrishna Road, Central Circle – 1(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 40Section 80Section 80I

…isallowance u/s.80IB of the Act in the respective assessment year. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd., v. JCIT, SR-5, Pune, (2008) 110 ITD 198 (Pune) Rubber Ltd. vs. DCIT, C.Circle-25, (2006) 152 Taxman 47 (Delhi) dismissed the respective appeals. Aggrieved against those orders, the assessee filed these appeals with common grounds and hence the grounds of assessment year 2012-13 are extracted as under:- “1. The Hon’ble C.I.T. (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowing the…

ACCENT PHARMA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, in ITA No

ITA 141/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.140 & 141/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Accent Pharma, Vs The Acit, 15, Gopalakrishna Road, Central Circle – 1(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 40Section 80Section 80I

…isallowance u/s.80IB of the Act in the respective assessment year. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd., v. JCIT, SR-5, Pune, (2008) 110 ITD 198 (Pune) Rubber Ltd. vs. DCIT, C.Circle-25, (2006) 152 Taxman 47 (Delhi) dismissed the respective appeals. Aggrieved against those orders, the assessee filed these appeals with common grounds and hence the grounds of assessment year 2012-13 are extracted as under:- “1. The Hon’ble C.I.T. (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowing the…

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

…ssessment year 2007-08, consolidated order dated 08.07.2015. iii) Honeywell Automation India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 55 taxmann.com 539 (Pune-Trib.) iv) Malay N. Sanghvi Vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 556 (Bom). v) Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2008) 110 ITD 198 (Pune) 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placing reliance on the orders of authorities below pointed out that the Assessing Officer has estimated income observing that in the list of business of assessee, profit from 15% to 25% was normal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising…