Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt.Ltd. v. ACIT

38 SOT 252Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#7152 most cited

What is Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt.Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act must be computed with reference to the profits of the eligible undertaking independently, without merging with non-eligible units.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt Ltd · 38 SOT 252 · Section 10A · eligible unit · non-eligible unit · independent taxation · profits and gains · particular undertaking · total income

Judgments citing Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt.Ltd. v. ACIT

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Kochi, Kochi, Kerala

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

ITA 641/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

…igible unit has to be taxed independently without merging with the non-eligible unit u/s 10A of the Act. The ITAT while holding so has made reference to the judgment of special bench in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Private Ltd., reported in 38 SOT 252. 7. However, the AO in his order giving effect dated 22/07/2010 has allowed the set off profit of the eligible unit against the loss of other units, which was against the direction of the ITAT. 8. The AO further upon realizing the mistake rectified its OGE dated 22/07/2010 suo moto under the provisions of sec. 154 of the Act vide order dated 11/0…

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 640/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

…igible unit has to be taxed independently without merging with the non-eligible unit u/s 10A of the Act. The ITAT while holding so has made reference to the judgment of special bench in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Private Ltd., reported in 38 SOT 252. 7. However, the AO in his order giving effect dated 22/07/2010 has allowed the set off profit of the eligible unit against the loss of other units, which was against the direction of the ITAT. 8. The AO further upon realizing the mistake rectified its OGE dated 22/07/2010 suo moto under the provisions of sec. 154 of the Act vide order dated 11/0…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…t ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 to the assessee. It was held that the phrase “total income” used in sec 10A(1) is to be understood as the total income of the STP unit. Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 252 observed that assessee may have more than one undertaking and in such a case, one has to consider the profits and gains of that "particular undertaking" which qualify for deduction under s. 10A. It was held that in computing deduction under s. 10A, we have to ascertain the total income as per the provisions of the Act in respect of "that undertaki…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…t ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 to the assessee. It was held that the phrase “total income” used in sec 10A(1) is to be understood as the total income of the STP unit. Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 252 observed that assessee may have more than one undertaking and in such a case, one has to consider the profits and gains of that "particular undertaking" which qualify for deduction under s. 10A. It was held that in computing deduction under s. 10A, we have to ascertain the total income as per the provisions of the Act in respect of "that undertaki…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…t ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 to the assessee. It was held that the phrase “total income” used in sec 10A(1) is to be understood as the total income of the STP unit. Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 252 observed that assessee may have more than one undertaking and in such a case, one has to consider the profits and gains of that "particular undertaking" which qualify for deduction under s. 10A. It was held that in computing deduction under s. 10A, we have to ascertain the total income as per the provisions of the Act in respect of "that undertaki…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…t ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 to the assessee. It was held that the phrase “total income” used in sec 10A(1) is to be understood as the total income of the STP unit. Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 252 observed that assessee may have more than one undertaking and in such a case, one has to consider the profits and gains of that "particular undertaking" which qualify for deduction under s. 10A. It was held that in computing deduction under s. 10A, we have to ascertain the total income as per the provisions of the Act in respect of "that undertaki…

Nandalal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6949/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 24Section 45

…rust/institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon'ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, i.e., to the extent not covered by the deduction there-under, would stand to be taxed directly and not enter the computation mechanism inasmuch as the same do not form part of the gross total income, as section 10A falls under Chapter HI of the Act, so t…

Improvement Trust, Fatehabad vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6334/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyimprovement Trust Fatehabad, Vs. Ito(Exemptions), Near Bus Stand, Rohtak Fatehabad Pan: Aaati6435P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 24

…accordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon'ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty 10 ITA 106/Mum/2016 Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, i.e., to the extent not covered by the deduction there-under, would stand to be taxed directly and not enter the computation mechanism inasmuch as the same do not form part of the gross total income, as section 10A falls under Chapter HI of the Act, so t…

Famy Care Private Limited (Formerly Known As Famy Care Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5984/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) Famy Care Pvt Ltd, Acit, Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Brady House, 12/14, Veer Nariman Road, V/S Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaacf 0632Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 70

…elied on the following decisions;  CIT Vs Black & Veatech Consulting Pvt Ltd (348 ITR 72 Bom),  Changepond Technologies P Ltd Vs ACIT ( 22SOT 22) Chennai,  Patspin India Ltd Vs CIT (38 SOT 369 ) Chennai,  Scientific Atlanta India Technology P Ltd Vs ACIT (38 SOT 252) Chennai,  Genstener Duplicators Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (117 ITR 1) SC,  CIT Vs Himatsinghike Seide Ltd ( 286 ITR 255 Knt),  G Jwelecraft Ltd Vs CIT (ITA No. 5087/Mum/2012 and  CBDT Circular No. 279/Misc/M/-116/2012-ITJ dated 16.07.2013. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. DR for the re…

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dimissed

ITA 106/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Nandlal Tolani Charitable Vs Ito (E)-2(1), Mumbai Trust, 10-A, Bhkhtawar, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan : Aaatn0043Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 24

…cordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon'ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty 10 ITA 106/Mum/2016 Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, i.e., to the extent not covered by the deduction there-under, would stand to be taxed directly and not enter the computation mechanism inasmuch as the same do not form part of the gross total income, as section 10A falls under Chapter HI of the Act, so t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

…singike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and on the other, the. aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the-Special Bench of the' Tribunal in the case of Scientific Atlanta India (P) limited: 38 SOT 252/129 TTJ 273 wherein the Tribunal has held that deduction under section 10A of the Act has to be independently computed in relation to the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting the same against- unabsorbed depreciation relating to the non-eligible unit(s). Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of Bangalore Bench of…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Nandlal Taolani Charitabhle Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is

ITA 200/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asst. Cit Central Circle 17 & 28 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri V K Agarwal
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(3)(e)

…rust/institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon’ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, i.e., to the extent not covered by the deduction there-under, would stand to be taxed directly and not enter the computation mechanism inasmuch as the same do not form part of the gross total income, as section 10A falls under Chapter III of the Act, so…

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 18, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is

ITA 1110/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asst. Cit Central Circle 17 & 28 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri V K Agarwal
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(3)(e)

…rust/institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon’ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, i.e., to the extent not covered by the deduction there-under, would stand to be taxed directly and not enter the computation mechanism inasmuch as the same do not form part of the gross total income, as section 10A falls under Chapter III of the Act, so…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Abt Info Systems P Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.480/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 10ASection 10B

…n fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. After considering various decisions on the issue, including the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (38 SOT 252), the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to calculate deduction under Section 10A of the Act. On a query from the Bench whether any opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act, The Ld.counsel for the assessee had fairly submitted that no opportunity was given to the…

I.T.O WD - 2(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Last Peak Data Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Vasant SubramanyanFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] ITA Nos.154&155/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-2(3) -versus- M/s.Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCL0380Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Vasant Subramanyan, For the Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 05.10.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM : ITA No. 154/Kol/2013 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 8.10.2012 of CIT(A)-I, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. 2. The…

Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt.Ltd. v. ACIT (38 SOT 252) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax