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

reassessment order dated 20.2.13 passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, allowed deduction us/ 10B of the Act to the assessee by holding that the activities undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section

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

reassessment order dated 20.2.13 passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, allowed deduction us/ 10B of the Act to the assessee by holding that the activities undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section

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

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

reassessment order dated 20.2.13 passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, allowed deduction us/ 10B of the Act to the assessee by holding that the activities undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section

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

reassessment order dated 20.2.13 passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, allowed deduction us/ 10B of the Act to the assessee by holding that the activities undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

10B, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2000 was a Section providing for a deduction whereas prior to the substitution the earlier provision was in the nature of an exemption. It was thus held that the basis on which the assessment was sought to be ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 22 of 32 reopened was wrong and the reassessment

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

10B, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2000 was a Section providing for a deduction whereas prior to the substitution the earlier provision was in the nature of an exemption. It was thus held that the basis on which the assessment was sought to be ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 22 of 32 reopened was wrong and the reassessment

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

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the Page 46 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T assessee to claim

M/S JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the Page 46 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T assessee to claim

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

SHIKHAR EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. AITO WARD - 54(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarshikhar Exports Vs. Aito, Ward – 54(1) C/O. Pranshu Goel, C.A. New Delhi 5A/3A, Ansari Road Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002 Pan: Aadfs 6406 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranshu Goel, C.A. & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024

section 10B of the Act in the reassessment proceeding. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

10B(8), which cannot be applied in other case, much less in the case like the present one where there is no specific statutory time limit for claiming non-taxability of subsidy incentive. 28. The ld AR is placed specific reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Wipro Finance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Velingkar Brothers: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Velingkar Brothers: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Velingkar Brothers: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal