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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment action, insofar as AY 2013-14 is\nconcerned, being beyond the maximum window of six\nyears would thus falter and fail on this score\nadditionally.\n\n23.\nThat takes us to the principal question and\nconcerning the legal requirements flowing from Section\n80-1A read along with Rule 12. We find that insofar as the\ndirectory nature of Section

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. 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

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

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

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of\nthe Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the\nassessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of\nexpenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment\nproceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated\n15.01.2009 passed under section

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

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of\nthe Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the\nassessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of\nexpenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment\nproceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated\n15.01.2009 passed under section

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of\nthe Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the\nassessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of\nexpenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment\nproceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated\n15.01.2009 passed under section

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

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of\nthe Act, is not a denovo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the\nassessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of\nexpenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment\nproceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated\n15.01.2009 passed under section

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