Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. DCiT

30 SOT 474Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#20402 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. DCiT

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…ized representative relied on the judgement of Bangalore Bench in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. (81 TTJ 455). On the other hand, the learned departmental representative relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd., Vs. DCiT 30 SOT 474 and submitted that the turnover shall be the basis for allocating the overhead expenses. She Submitted that all expenses of the business, whether direct or indirect project specific or common expenses have to be considered for computation of the profits and gains of eligible business u/ s. 80HHC. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tr…

M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 817/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I

…management and supervision expenses have not been apportioned amongst the units/plants claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The AO invoked the provisions of section 80IA(5), relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Nitco Tiles (30 SOT 474 Mum) and held that administrative, head office and other expenses have a direct nexus with the running of various eligible units. In our view, there cannot be any dispute that the provisions of section 80IA(5) are attracted in the instant case. At the same time, provisions of section 80IA(5) have to be read harmoniously along with the provisions o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 772/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I

…management and supervision expenses have not been apportioned amongst the units/plants claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The AO invoked the provisions of section 80IA(5), relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Nitco Tiles (30 SOT 474 Mum) and held that administrative, head office and other expenses have a direct nexus with the running of various eligible units. In our view, there cannot be any dispute that the provisions of section 80IA(5) are attracted in the instant case. At the same time, provisions of section 80IA(5) have to be read harmoniously along with the provisions o…

Gamzen Plast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7449/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. B.V.JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri. Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…1th March 2010 and the Madras High has considered the said decision of the Special Bench and then held in the favour of the assessee. Therefore, the decision is not applicable. 11. The CIT(A) has also referred to decision in case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. vs. DCIT (30 SOT 474, Mum. Trib.) dated 9th April, 2009. This judgment has followed the decision of ACIT vs. Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (113 ITD 209, Ahd. SB) which has been overruled by the Madras High Court in Velayudhswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (340 ITR 477, Mad) dated 11th March 2010 and it has also been rendered prior to the decision of Velay…

Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. DCiT (30 SOT 474) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax