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

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

section 10B(2)(i) of the Act. It is submitted that aforesaid concurrent finding of the learned CIT(A) and Hon’ble Tribunal has also not adversely been commented by the Hon’ble High Court, and case has been set aside only on account of the finding of the Hon’ble High Court that before admitting the additional evidences

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

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

section 10B(2)(i) of the Act. It is submitted that aforesaid concurrent finding of the learned CIT(A) and Hon’ble Tribunal has also not adversely been commented by the Hon’ble High Court, and case has been set aside only on account of the finding of the Hon’ble High Court that before admitting the additional evidences

MRS. SASHI SADH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Sashi Sadh, 52/12, C.R. Park, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(2), New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Amlps4154L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 is answered in affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B(4) of the Act. 3.1. Since the Special Bench after considering the ratio of decisions in the case of Liberty India (supra

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

disallowance of exemption under section 10B amounting to Rs. 56,13,895/- assessing the total income at Rs. 2,26,13,49,042/-. 3.5 The assessee

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

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section

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

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section

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

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section

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

2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to disallowance of deduction under 10B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee claimed deduction under section

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

2) of section 32 of the Act, it is only thereafter that the income from profits and gains of business or profession are computed to be included in the total income of the assessee and ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 16 thereafter deduction under section 1 OB of the Act is to be allowed under the computation of income

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

Section 10B of the Act. This was the first year of operation of this Unit. (ii) However, there was a loss of ` 2,00,29,769/- from this unit which the assessee had set off against the income of the other units. 3. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the set-off of this loss should

PICRIC LTD vs. ITO WARD 14 (4),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions contained in para 22 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 10B at Rs. 1,82,59,833/- resulting in the disallowance of interest income of Rs. 19,24,528/- as also other income of Rs. 21,08,000/-. 4.2 The facts relating to the Ground No. 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

10B as the period of deduction of 10 years expires prior to assessment year 2005-06.” The second document relied on were the Instructions of 2006, dated 31st March, 2006: “INSTRUCTIONS NO.1 OF 2006, DT. 31ST MARCH, 2006 SUB: Deduction under Section 10A-Clarification-Reg. 31/3/2006 EXEMPTIONS SECTION 10A 1. Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides

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

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

2)(iii), amounting Rs. 10,10,140/- 3.1 Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), the assessee challenged the investment made in the unit covered under section 10B of the Act for the purpose of disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

2. The brief facts of the case that the assesse, an individual, in her return claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of ` 39,32,654. She claimed to be a software exporter to Netherlands. The importer was one Mr. Rolli Janssen B.V. The claim was disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

2. The brief facts of the case that the assesse, an individual, in her return claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of ` 39,32,654. She claimed to be a software exporter to Netherlands. The importer was one Mr. Rolli Janssen B.V. The claim was disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. MS. KIRAN KAPOOR

2. The brief facts of the case that the assesse, an individual, in her return claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of ` 39,32,654. She claimed to be a software exporter to Netherlands. The importer was one Mr. Rolli Janssen B.V. The claim was disallowed

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

disallowed the deductions claimed by the taxpayer u/s 10AA on account of interest income of Rs. 7,57,24,178/- and miscellaneous income of Rs. 2, 90,63,825/-. On the ground that the said income cannot be set to have any direct nexus with the assessee business because the assessee is not into the business of finance and investment

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

2 will apply only when the context does not otherwise require. The placement, language and setting of section 10A cannot mean the total ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 19 of 32 income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Instead, such a phrase in the context of section 10A, means profits and gains of the STP undertaking as understood