BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

470 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10B(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi470Mumbai433Bangalore321Chennai169Kolkata126Pune85Ahmedabad79Hyderabad54Jaipur32Karnataka28Chandigarh19Lucknow17Cochin13Indore9Surat9Guwahati8Rajkot7Ranchi6Agra5Patna5Telangana5Visakhapatnam4Dehradun3Nagpur3Calcutta3Raipur2Cuttack2Varanasi2Orissa1Jodhpur1SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80I69Addition to Income62Section 10A55Deduction55Section 143(3)54Transfer Pricing49Disallowance46Section 92C45Depreciation31Section 143(1)

UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

4. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 17. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the TPO. He submitted that the TPO, after considering FAR analysis has selected those comparables

Showing 1–20 of 470 · Page 1 of 24

...
30
Section 10B30
Section 115J27

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

4. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 17. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the TPO. He submitted that the TPO, after considering FAR analysis has selected those comparables

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/2067/2010HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 72

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/347/2011HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 72

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

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

ITA/386/2013HC Delhi13 Mar 2015

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

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 260A

4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading ―C – Deductions in respect of certain incomes‖, where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business

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

depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing its income whereas the income from profit and gains of the business or profession should be computed as per section 29 of the Act and in accordance with the provisions of section 30 to 43C. The Assessing Officer also referred to section 10B(4

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2531/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

4. It is submitted that in the instant case, learned CIT has revised the orders of assessment for three assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 under section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that in so far as the orders of assessment for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 are concerned, such orders

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5703/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

4. It is submitted that in the instant case, learned CIT has revised the orders of assessment for three assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 under section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that in so far as the orders of assessment for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 are concerned, such orders

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 924/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

4. It is submitted that in the instant case, learned CIT has revised the orders of assessment for three assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 under section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that in so far as the orders of assessment for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 are concerned, such orders

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5702/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

4. It is submitted that in the instant case, learned CIT has revised the orders of assessment for three assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 under section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that in so far as the orders of assessment for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 are concerned, such orders

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. Q.H. TALBROS LTD., GURGAON

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

ITA 806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

4) mandates the application of the formula for determining the profits derived from exports for the purposes of Section 10B(1). In other words, the formula would read thus: Profits derived = profits of the business x export turnover from export of the undertaking total turnover 9A. In terms of the above formula, the question that would arise is whether

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. Q.H. TALBROS LTD., GURGAON

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

ITA 4939/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

4) mandates the application of the formula for determining the profits derived from exports for the purposes of Section 10B(1). In other words, the formula would read thus: Profits derived = profits of the business x export turnover from export of the undertaking total turnover 9A. In terms of the above formula, the question that would arise is whether

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

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

ITA 5497/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

4. Sub-section (6) of sections 10A and 10B were amended by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2001. Circular No. 7/2003, dated 5- 9-2003 explains the amendments brought by Finance Act, 2003. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: "20. Providing for carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RIVIERA HOME FURNISHING (P) LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 4112/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Vs. Acit, Range-15, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Riviera Home Furnishings Dcit, Circle-15(1), Room No. Pvt. Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, 412, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Aggarwal Corporate Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi Pan : Aaacr4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Department By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order

Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 14A

4. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and, therefore, not required to be adjudicated upon specifically. 5. The ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal relates to the issue whether section 10B is a deduction or an exemption provision. 5.1 The learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3557/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 801A(4)Section 80I

4); the six deductions as referred to in section 80AC must necessarily be claimed in the return filed u/s 139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed

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

4) of section 10B of the Act, first the profit of the business has to be computed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business or profession’ and in then profit is to be apportioned between the export turnover and the local turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the deduction under section 10B of the Act allowable

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

4) of section 10B of the Act, first the profit of the business has to be computed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business or profession’ and in then profit is to be apportioned between the export turnover and the local turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the deduction under section 10B of the Act allowable

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

4) of section 10B of the Act, first the profit of the business has to be computed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business or profession’ and in then profit is to be apportioned between the export turnover and the local turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the deduction under section 10B of the Act allowable

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

4) of section 10B of the Act, first the profit of the business has to be computed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business or profession’ and in then profit is to be apportioned between the export turnover and the local turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the deduction under section 10B of the Act allowable

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

10B Units which were retained by the company and classified as Noida DTA, It is also clarified that during the instant year, expenditure claimed on depreciation in respect of the said Noida DTA assets is of Rs. 52,74,157/-. A copy of the chart of depreciation of assets of Noida DTA is placed at page 152 of the Paper