CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Capital gains” under section 74(1) and no tax holiday deficiency under section 80J(3) in respect of any of the assessment years comprised in the tax holiday period will, in so far as such loss or deficiency relates to the business of industrial undertaking, be carried forward or set off in computing the income of the assessment year immediately

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

gains derived from the export of articles or things or computer software”. 7.11 Further, it was submitted that the aforesaid Circular, too, clearly provides that tax benefit under section 10B of the Act is in the nature of "deduction" and the Circular further clarified that income/loss from various sources, i.e. eligible and ineligible units, under the same head have

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

gains derived from the export of articles or things or computer software”. 7.11 Further, it was submitted that the aforesaid Circular, too, clearly provides that tax benefit under section 10B of the Act is in the nature of "deduction" and the Circular further clarified that income/loss from various sources, i.e. eligible and ineligible units, under the same head have

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

gain amounting to Rs. 1,71,72,139/- on the sale of 1000 shares of M/s Systems America India Ltd. It has also been observed that she has shown to incur short term capital loss of R s. 1,70,96,112/- on a/c of 172000 equity shares of M/s Suma Finance Ltd. (C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

gain amounting to Rs. 1,71,72,139/- on the sale of 1000 shares of M/s Systems America India Ltd. It has also been observed that she has shown to incur short term capital loss of R s. 1,70,96,112/- on a/c of 172000 equity shares of M/s Suma Finance Ltd. (C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share

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

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

Capital Gain 64,46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Shah VrajlalMadhavji [1974] 95 ITR 614 (KER.) holding that the quantum of capital gain can be altered by way of rectification on subsequent change in sale consideration by High Court. Thus, he submitted that, this revised return

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Shah VrajlalMadhavji [1974] 95 ITR 614 (KER.) holding that the quantum of capital gain can be altered by way of rectification on subsequent change in sale consideration by High Court. Thus, he submitted that, this revised return

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Shah VrajlalMadhavji [1974] 95 ITR 614 (KER.) holding that the quantum of capital gain can be altered by way of rectification on subsequent change in sale consideration by High Court. Thus, he submitted that, this revised return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

3. A bare reading of sub-section (1) suggests that 100 % export oriented undertakings are entitled to a deduction of profits and gains derived from the export of articles for a period of 10 years. The aforesaid entitlement is, however, subject to the provisions of Section 10B. In other words, subject to the provisions contained in the other parts

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

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

10A unit has to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee. The income of 10A unit has to be deducted at source itself and not after computing the gross total income. The total income, used in"'the provisions of section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total

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

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

10A unit has to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee. The income of 10A unit has to be deducted at source itself and not after computing the gross total income. The total income, used in"'the provisions of section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total

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

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

10A unit has to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee. The income of 10A unit has to be deducted at source itself and not after computing the gross total income. The total income, used in"'the provisions of section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total

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

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

10A unit has to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee. The income of 10A unit has to be deducted at source itself and not after computing the gross total income. The total income, used in"'the provisions of section IDA in this context means the global income off the assessee and not the total

PHONIX LAMPS LTD vs. ADDL CIT RANGE,

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S Pheonix Lamps Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 59A, Nsez, Phase-Ii, Range Noida. Noida. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :S/Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Sharat Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2017 O R D E R

3). The Ld. Authorised Representative underlined the fact that the earlier definition did not use the word “any”. It was submitted that by the use of word “any”, the unexpired period of the ten consecutive assessment years would be covered. 3.2 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the object and purpose behind section 10A and subsection 10A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

3) to (6) of sub-section 10B, more particularly, clause (ii) of sub-section (6) and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Chennai, the losses of eligible units are to be set off against the profits of such eligible units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which the assessee