← All Phrases

“STPI unit”

DeductionsSection 10ASection 10A75 judgments

The decision most relied on for STPI unit is III v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (93 Taxmann.com 33), cited in 245 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on STPI unit

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

ITO v. Sak Soft Ltd.
30 SOT 55 · 2009 · ITAT
80
citing judgments

When computing the deduction under Sections 10A or 10AA, if certain expenses (like those incurred in foreign currency or communication expenses) are excluded from 'export turnover' in the numerator, the same expenses must also be excluded from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent calculation.

CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd.
353 ITR 326 · 2013 · High Court
43
citing judgments

For a valid claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, especially for a 100% Export Oriented Unit under Explanation 2(iv), approval from the Director STPI requires mandatory ratification by the specified "Board". An alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A, even if not initially raised before the Assessing Officer, can be directed for consideration by the Tribunal.

CIT v. WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM LTD.
358 ITR 518 · 2013 · High Court
19
citing judgments

To qualify for a Section 10A deduction, an undertaking must be independent of the assessee's existing undertakings, rather than merely an expansion of existing business.

PCIT v. Macquarie Global Services (P.) Ltd.
102 Taxmann.com 272 · 2019 · High Court
15
citing judgments

A deduction under Section 10AA cannot be withdrawn in a subsequent year if it was accepted in the first year of operations and the second year, by re-examining factors relevant to the initial year.

CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P.Ltd.
354 ITR 110 · 2013 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Approval from the Director of STPI is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, even for Export Oriented Units (EOUs).

Judgments citing STPI unit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1532/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1531/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1530/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 613/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 532/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

which was denied by the Ld.AO, based on the turnover of the SEZ units. The Ld.AR submitted that the rental income pertained only to STPI units and therefore it was an income that was generated out of the undertaking. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the revenue

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

assessee, these incomes were treated as business income and the same formed part of the profits of the business of the SEZ units, STPI units and other units of the assessee. The income referable to SEZ units were claimed as deduction under section 10AA. 15.3. It is submitted that

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1248/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

deduction of Rs132,18,47,053 as deduction of profit exempted u/s 10A- STP profit. The company had furnished the net profit calculation for STPI unit and non STPI unit separately to the AO. The details are enclosed as annexure-3& 4. In this statement, the company disclosed depreciation ofRs.45 ... division. This means they ought to have maintained separate fixed asset register for both the units i.e. STPI and non STPI units. Without having that basic details, they cannot claim the said depreciation. It is seen from the assessment records, the AO had called for the evidences of fixed asset

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1158/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

deduction of Rs132,18,47,053 as deduction of profit exempted u/s 10A- STP profit. The company had furnished the net profit calculation for STPI unit and non STPI unit separately to the AO. The details are enclosed as annexure-3& 4. In this statement, the company disclosed depreciation ofRs.45 ... division. This means they ought to have maintained separate fixed asset register for both the units i.e. STPI and non STPI units. Without having that basic details, they cannot claim the said depreciation. It is seen from the assessment records, the AO had called for the evidences of fixed asset

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

being done in each unit is quite different and most of the units have a distinct different set of customers. Assets used in STPI units are distinct and all units are Custom bonded 6. premises. Since custom duty is not payable on these assets, they cannot be removed from ... claimed by the appellant. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under section 10 A to the appellant in respect of all the STPI units in respect of which the appellant has claimed the same. M/s. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt Ltd., It will not be cut of place

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 286/MUM/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2003-04
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

being done in each unit is quite different and most of the units have a distinct different set of customers. Assets used in STPI units are distinct and all units are Custom bonded 6. premises. Since custom duty is not payable on these assets, they cannot be removed from ... claimed by the appellant. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under section 10 A to the appellant in respect of all the STPI units in respect of which the appellant has claimed the same. M/s. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt Ltd., It will not be cut of place

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

record, we find that the dispute revolves around the allocation of indirect and common expenses relating to various units and the expenditure allocated to STPI unit, income from which is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The assessee is . M/s. MFX Infotech Pvt. Ltd 35 stated ... assessment year also. However, with regard to the discrepancy pointed out by the AO to the effect that there were more employees in the STPI unit while only 27 crores was allocated towards such unit, whereas there were less employees in SEZ unit but more than 53 crores was allocated

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3247/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

being done in each unit is quite different and most of the units have a distinct different set of customers. 6. Assets used in STPI units are distinct and all units are Custom bonded premises. Since custom duty is not payable on these assets, they cannot be removed from ... claimed by the appellant. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under section 10 A to the appellant in respect of all the STPI units in respect of which the appellant has claimed the same. It will not be cut of place to mention that the issue is covered

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3032/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

being done in each unit is quite different and most of the units have a distinct different set of customers. 6. Assets used in STPI units are distinct and all units are Custom bonded premises. Since custom duty is not payable on these assets, they cannot be removed from ... claimed by the appellant. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under section 10 A to the appellant in respect of all the STPI units in respect of which the appellant has claimed the same. It will not be cut of place to mention that the issue is covered

Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

being done in each unit is quite different and most of the units have a distinct different set of customers. 6. Assets used in STPI units are distinct and all units are Custom bonded premises. Since custom duty is not payable on these assets, they cannot be removed from ... claimed by the appellant. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under section 10 A to the appellant in respect of all the STPI units in respect of which the appellant has claimed the same. It will not be cut of place to mention that the issue is covered

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Rialto Exim P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 4Section 4(11)

karn) squarely applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, both the lower authorities had rightly allowed the deduction u/s 10A in respect of STPI unit." Followed by CIT v. Wipro GE Medical System Ltd. (2015) 4 ITR-OL 288 (karn) and CIT v. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

against this company on the ground that this company is engaged in the development of software and software products. Further, this company consists of STPI unit and also having a training centre engaged in training of software professionals on online products Thus, when this company is having revenue from software

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 43B

providing software development and Information Technology enabled Services [ITeS] of various healthcare solutions that are designed and developed by Cerner US. The assessee has STPI units in Bangalore and Kolkatta. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.36 ... absence of documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The DRP confirmed the said addition. 13. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is STPI unit which is exempt from payment of customs duty. The ld. AR submitted additional evidence in the form of Certificate of procurement of Page