Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

107 ITR 195Supreme Court of India1977#591 most cited

What is Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 107 ITR 195 · Section 80J · Section 80IC · new industrial undertaking · reconstruction of business · splitting up of business · tax deduction eligibility · independent production unit · transfer of substantial assets · tax benefits

Also reported as

2 SCC 368

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80-ICSection 10(2A)Section 143(3A)Section 28(v)Section 40(b)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)software technology parksection 80jsection 80icsection 80hhcsection 80hhtax benefitsection 80isection 80iasection 10aarm's length pricegross total income

Judgments citing Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Saf Yeast Co. P.Ltd., Mumba vs. ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…e all, a separate and distinct identity of the industrial unit set up. 36. Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd vs CIT (350 ITR 94) while relying on the judgement of Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 further held that so far as the fifth test is concerned i.e. a separate and distinct identity, only because to a certain extent the new undertaking is dependent on the existing unit, will not deprive the new undertaking the status of a separate and distinct identity. It all depends on the nature of the technology and the mechanism of production.…

Dy CIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Saf Yeast Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…e all, a separate and distinct identity of the industrial unit set up. 36. Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd vs CIT (350 ITR 94) while relying on the judgement of Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 further held that so far as the fifth test is concerned i.e. a separate and distinct identity, only because to a certain extent the new undertaking is dependent on the existing unit, will not deprive the new undertaking the status of a separate and distinct identity. It all depends on the nature of the technology and the mechanism of production.…

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited vs. Competition Commission of India

WA/563/2021HC Karnataka23 Jul 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 4

…ons in support of the order made by them. Reliance has also been placed upon paragraphs 96 and 97 of the aforesaid judgment and the same reads as under; 96. Even in cases of supersession, it was held in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368 that reasons for supersession should be essentially provided in the order of the authority. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic…

ACIT Circle-15(1), New Delhi vs. Ltc Commercial Company Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7029/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ACIT Circle-15(1) LTC Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 321, 100, Rajnagar, 2nd Floor, 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 092 Vs. New Delhi. PAN AAACL5416A (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Mayank Patwari, CA Date of Hearing 13/05/2021 Date of 10/06/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned…

DCIT Company Circle I(1), Chennai vs. Pool Thevar Marimuthu, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3400/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

…sion. The Madras High court held that the petitioner is entitled to the deduction u/s. 80J of Income Tax Act.” 16. The learned AR has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) in the context of deduction claimed u/s. 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is corresponding to section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 held as under:- “Section 15C is an exemption section. The benefit granted under this section is a partial benefit so far as the quantum of the exempted profits of the new industrial undertaking as also…

DCIT Company Circle I(1), Chennai vs. Pool Thevar Marimuthu, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3399/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

…sion. The Madras High court held that the petitioner is entitled to the deduction u/s. 80J of Income Tax Act.” 16. The learned AR has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC) in the context of deduction claimed u/s. 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is corresponding to section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 held as under:- “Section 15C is an exemption section. The benefit granted under this section is a partial benefit so far as the quantum of the exempted profits of the new industrial undertaking as also…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Eurobond Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all these appeals are allowed statistical purposes

ITA 6611/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
Section 131Section 80I

…stances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on independent unit or separate undertaking in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC)?" 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds above, may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of Aluminium Composite Panels (hereinafter referred as 'ACP'). It has claimed to have two manufacturing units in Jammu.…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…s.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 paragraph (i) & (ii) above. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IA of the Income-tax Act cannot be accepted. iv) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (107 ITR 195) cannot be accepted in the assessee’s case due to the fact that the above said decision of the Honorable Supreme Court was purely related to the restructuring of the business. Hence, the facts of the said case are not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of section 80-IA shall be applicable only to the asses…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…s.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 paragraph (i) & (ii) above. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IA of the Income-tax Act cannot be accepted. iv) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (107 ITR 195) cannot be accepted in the assessee’s case due to the fact that the above said decision of the Honorable Supreme Court was purely related to the restructuring of the business. Hence, the facts of the said case are not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of section 80-IA shall be applicable only to the asses…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…s.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 paragraph (i) & (ii) above. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IA of the Income-tax Act cannot be accepted. iv) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (107 ITR 195) cannot be accepted in the assessee’s case due to the fact that the above said decision of the Honorable Supreme Court was purely related to the restructuring of the business. Hence, the facts of the said case are not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of section 80-IA shall be applicable only to the asses…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…s.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 paragraph (i) & (ii) above. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IA of the Income-tax Act cannot be accepted. iv) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (107 ITR 195) cannot be accepted in the assessee’s case due to the fact that the above said decision of the Honorable Supreme Court was purely related to the restructuring of the business. Hence, the facts of the said case are not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of section 80-IA shall be applicable only to the asses…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Syngene

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/184/2016HC Karnataka02 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 260A

…VS. PEERLESS CONSULTANCY & SERVICE (P.) LTD', (2001) 116 TAXMAN 13 (SC), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-V-, NEW DELHI VS. ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD.', (2010) 187 TAXMAN 275 (SC), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.', (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC). 12 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note relevant extract of Section 10B of the Act, which reads as under: 10B. 5 Special provision in respect of newly established hundred per cent export- oriented undertak…

Marathon Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 6100/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Marathon Electric India Pvt. Vs Acit Ltd. Circle-1 Sector-11, Faridabad Model Town Faridabad (Respondent) Aaacg5525H (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 144Section 254Section 92D

…the appeals preferred by the revenue, wherein in respect of the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal found that by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) learned CIT(A) had rightly extended the relief to the assessee u/s 10B of the Act and, therefore, the revenue cannot have any grievance against the same. It is not the case of the revenue that any appeal was preferred against the order or that this position was disturbed. 5. It is not the case of Revenue that there is any change of facts a…

Pr.Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/571/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the as…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/559/2015HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the as…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the as…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…om that undertaking from export of articles, things or computer software, the assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 10A of the Act. In fact, in one of the similar situation, the Apex Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 held as under: "10. The assessee continues to be the same for the purpose of assessment. It has its existing business already liable to tax. It produced in the two concerned undertakings commodities different from those which it has been manufacturing or producing in its existing business. Manufacture or production of articles yielding additional…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…om that undertaking from export of articles, things or computer software, the assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 10A of the Act. In fact, in one of the similar situation, the Apex Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 held as under: "10. The assessee continues to be the same for the purpose of assessment. It has its existing business already liable to tax. It produced in the two concerned undertakings commodities different from those which it has been manufacturing or producing in its existing business. Manufacture or production of articles yielding additional…

M/S. Marathon Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 10BSection 144

…the appeals preferred by the revenue, wherein in respect of the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal found that by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) learned CIT(A) had rightly extended the relief to the assessee u/s 10B of the Act and, therefore, the revenue cannot have any grievance against the same. It is not the case of the revenue that any appeal was preferred against the order or that this position was disturbed. 5. It is not the case of Revenue that there is any change of facts and…

Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5257/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 10BSection 144

…the appeals preferred by the revenue, wherein in respect of the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal found that by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 195 (SC) learned CIT(A) had rightly extended the relief to the assessee u/s 10B of the Act and, therefore, the revenue cannot have any grievance against the same. It is not the case of the revenue that any appeal was preferred against the order or that this position was disturbed. 5. It is not the case of Revenue that there is any change of facts and…