Maral Overseas Ltd. v. ACIT

136 ITD 177Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#2536 most cited

What is Maral Overseas Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

There is a distinction between the computation of deduction under sections 10A and 10B, where the entire business profit is eligible, versus sections 80IA, 80IB, and 80HH, where only profits derived from such businesses are eligible.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maral Overseas Ltd. v. ACIT · section 10B · section 80IA · section 80IB · section 80HH · eligible business profit · deduction

Also reported as

16 ITR 565

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 108perquisite valueconvertible foreign exchangeactual payment basisinterest u/s 234cinterest under section 234csection 10bsection 234dsection 80hhcsection 80hhcomputer softwaresection 80ib

Judgments citing Maral Overseas Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…f 2014 (CIT v. XLNC Fashions). While declining to frame a question of law in the Revenue's appeal, this Court inHritnik Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) quoted with approval the observations of the Special Bench of the ITAT in Maral Overseas Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 177/20 taxmann.com 346 (Indore) on the interpretation of Section 10B(4) of the Act as under: '79. Thus, sub-section (4) of section 10B stipulated that deduction under that section shall be computed by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover. Thus, not- withstanding the fact that sub-s…

Emerson Electric Company ( India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 372/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Emerson Electric Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Company (India) Private Income Tax Circle – 3(1) Limited Aayakar Bhavan 301, Solitaire Corporate Park M.K.Road, 151, M.V.Road Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 093

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…s or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking.” 12.2. We also find that the reliance placed on the Special Bench of Indore Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Additional CIT reported in 136 ITD 177 (Indore Tribunal) also supports the case of the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No.61/Kol/2016, 1830- 1831/Kol/2018 Assessment Year :2011-12 DCIT, Circle-10(2), V/s. M/s Yamai Fashion Pvt. P-7, Chowringhee Ltd., 6, Dover Lane, Square, 3rd Floor, Kolkat-29 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACT 9526 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dilip S Damle, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" त…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No.61/Kol/2016, 1830- 1831/Kol/2018 Assessment Year :2011-12 DCIT, Circle-10(2), V/s. M/s Yamai Fashion Pvt. P-7, Chowringhee Ltd., 6, Dover Lane, Square, 3rd Floor, Kolkat-29 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACT 9526 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dilip S Damle, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" त…

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No.61/Kol/2016, 1830- 1831/Kol/2018 Assessment Year :2011-12 DCIT, Circle-10(2), V/s. M/s Yamai Fashion Pvt. P-7, Chowringhee Ltd., 6, Dover Lane, Square, 3rd Floor, Kolkat-29 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACT 9526 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dilip S Damle, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" त…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ge Medical Systems India Pvt.Ltd

ITA/78/2016HC Karnataka25 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 260

…as the Tribunal, in the case of GE BE Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.815/Bang/2010 dated 06/12/2013 for the assessment year has considered the issue by following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. ACIT (136 ITD 177)(SB)(Indore) to hold that the claim of the assessee that profits from trading activity of the spare parts is also to be considered for the purpose of deduction u/s 10B of the Act should be accepted. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e eligible profit for deduction under section 10B. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT, 136 ITD 177. He further contended that ITAT, Ahmedabad has followed this decision in the case of Sonic Technology P.Ltd. rendered in ITA NO.2665 & 2720/Ahd/2011. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). 54. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. We find that Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Ma…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e eligible profit for deduction under section 10B. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT, 136 ITD 177. He further contended that ITAT, Ahmedabad has followed this decision in the case of Sonic Technology P.Ltd. rendered in ITA NO.2665 & 2720/Ahd/2011. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). 54. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. We find that Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Ma…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e eligible profit for deduction under section 10B. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT, 136 ITD 177. He further contended that ITAT, Ahmedabad has followed this decision in the case of Sonic Technology P.Ltd. rendered in ITA NO.2665 & 2720/Ahd/2011. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). 54. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. We find that Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Ma…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e eligible profit for deduction under section 10B. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT, 136 ITD 177. He further contended that ITAT, Ahmedabad has followed this decision in the case of Sonic Technology P.Ltd. rendered in ITA NO.2665 & 2720/Ahd/2011. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). 54. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. We find that Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Ma…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e eligible profit for deduction under section 10B. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT, 136 ITD 177. He further contended that ITAT, Ahmedabad has followed this decision in the case of Sonic Technology P.Ltd. rendered in ITA NO.2665 & 2720/Ahd/2011. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). 54. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. We find that Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Ma…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2442/KOL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Debnath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden,Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147

…e have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the issue in respect to the sale of DEPB licence is no longer res integra. We note that the Special Bench in the case of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. reported in 136 ITD 177 (Ind) (SB) has dealt with the similar issue. The Ld. AR took our attention to page 63 of the paper book wherein we note that the Special bench has answered the question raised before it in favour of the assessee. We note that in the said case the eligibility of deduction in respect of export incentive received by the assessee in terms of the prov…

Nikhil J. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 1392/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 10B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 Nikhil J Shah HUF Vs. ACIT-13(3), Mumbai 20, Nagin Mahal, 82, V.N. Road, (Respondent) Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AAAHN3226M (Appellant) SA NO. 34/MUM/2018 : A.Y : 2011-12 (in ITA NO. 1392/MUM/2017) Nikhil J Shah HUF Vs. ACIT-17(2), Mumbai 20, Nagin Mahal, 82, V.N. Road, (Respondent) Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AAAHN3226M (Applicant) Applicant by : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent by : Shri T.A. Khan Date of Hear…

Nikhil J Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 8th March, 2018

ITA 4404/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant J. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2009-10) Nikhil J. Shah HUF Vs. DCIT-13(3), 20, Nagin Mahal, Mumbai (Respondent) 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 PAN : AAAHN3226M (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Nishant J. Thakkar Respondent by : Shri T.A. Khan Date of Hearing : 08/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08/03/2018 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 18.03.2013, pertaining to the Assess…

Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1056/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 10B(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…e Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this section clearly says that the deduction shall be from the profits and gains of 100% Export Oriented Unit. Placing reliance on the order of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Maral Overseas Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 565, the Ld.counsel submitted that in view of Section 10B(4) of the Act, the entire profit of the undertaking is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, the interest on the fixed deposit receipt has to be treated as profit of the undertaking, therefore, the assessee is 3 I.T.A. Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/17…

Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1055/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 10B(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…e Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this section clearly says that the deduction shall be from the profits and gains of 100% Export Oriented Unit. Placing reliance on the order of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Maral Overseas Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 565, the Ld.counsel submitted that in view of Section 10B(4) of the Act, the entire profit of the undertaking is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, the interest on the fixed deposit receipt has to be treated as profit of the undertaking, therefore, the assessee is 3 I.T.A. Nos.1055 & 1056/Mds/17…

DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata, Darjeeling vs. Narendra Tea Company (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1517/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10A

…e have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the issue in respect to the sale of DEPB licence is no longer res integra. We note that the Special Bench in the case of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. reported in 136 ITD 177 (Ind) (SB) has dealt with the similar issue. The Ld. AR took our attention to page 63 of the paper book wherein we note that the Special bench has answered the question raised before it in favour of the assessee. We note that in the said case the eligibility of deduction in respect of export incentive received by the assessee in terms of the prov…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ent India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 8118/Mum/2010 " Pitney Bowes Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in " Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 966/Del/2014 " Navisite India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 5329/Del/2012 " Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs ACIT 136 ITD 177 " Riviera Home Furnishings Vs ACIT 237 Taxman 520 " CIT Vs Punjab Stainless Steel Industries 364 ITR 144 (SC) " CIT Vs Sadhu Forging Ltd. 336 ITR 444 (Del.) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that if as a result of merger/demerger the resultant/remaining company becomes func…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ent India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 8118/Mum/2010 " Pitney Bowes Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in " Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 966/Del/2014 " Navisite India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 5329/Del/2012 " Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs ACIT 136 ITD 177 " Riviera Home Furnishings Vs ACIT 237 Taxman 520 " CIT Vs Punjab Stainless Steel Industries 364 ITR 144 (SC) " CIT Vs Sadhu Forging Ltd. 336 ITR 444 (Del.) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that if as a result of merger/demerger the resultant/remaining company becomes func…

Krupa Trading Company, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 8591/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A.Ramchandran
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 1O

…reference to the profits of the business of the undertaking computable in terms of sub-section(4) of section 10B of the Act . In this context, he has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT 16 ITR (Trib) 565 4 ITA No.7700/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2008-09) (Indore Special Bench). Apart thererom reliance has been placed on the following decisions to justify the claim of deduction:- (i) CIT v. Flowserve Microfinish Valves (P) Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxmann 133(Karn)(HC), (ii) CIT vs. Motrola India Electronics (P) Ltd.(2014) 265 CTR 94 (Kar)(HC) (iii…