PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

5. These appeals coming up for admission, having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are of the considered view, that no substantial questions of law would arise for consideration and the appeals do not merit admission. 6. The question of law (1) above is with regard to exclusion of expenses incurred in foreign

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

section 244A(1A) would apply to cases covered u/s 153(5); thus where, in respect of certain issues, order giving effect to be passed u/s 153(5), otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment is passed beyond the prescribed 42 time-limit, interest u/s 244A(1A) has to be granted in respect of refund arising on such issues

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation relating to software? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the exclusion of interest income, rental income and other income for the purpose of deduction under section 10A of the Act by placing reliance on the orders passed in the case of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

5 under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Authority, by which the assessing authority disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of stamp duty charges, professional and legal charges, depreciation on computers as well as claims made under Section 80JJAA of the Act as well as Section 10A

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10A or section 10B or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation – For the purposes of this clause – (a) the loss shall not include depreciation: (b) the provisions

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation has to be taken as per books of accounts and not as per balance sheet. It is further submitted that tribunal ought to have reduced the lower of the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per books of account relating to non 10A unit while

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation relation to the earlier assessment year? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the AO to exclude the expenditure incurred in foreign currency towards communication charges and travel expenses both from the export turnover and the total turnover when there is no provision in section 10A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SAFRAN AEROSPACE

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation / business) by 3 placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s.Yokogawa India Ltd., without appreciating the fact that deduction under Section 10A has to be allowed from the total income of the assessee and as per Section 2(45) of the Act, the total income should be computed from various

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation of earlier years while computing the deduction u/s.10A by holding that it did not find any infirmity of the order passed by the appellate Commissioner without appreciating that the relief allowed is a deduction and not an exclusion from the total income which is also clarified by the board’s circular No.7/DV/2013? 2. Whether the Tribunal is the grounds

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation of earlier years while computing the deduction u/s.10A by holding that it did not find any infirmity of the order passed by the appellate Commissioner without appreciating that the relief allowed is a deduction and not an exclusion from the total income which is also clarified by the board’s circular No.7/DV/2013? 2. Whether the Tribunal is the grounds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MERITOR LVS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation before computing deduction under section 10A, which is contrary to the provisions of section 70, 32(2) and 72 of the Income tax Act?” 3. However, at the request of the Appellants-Revenue, the substantial question of law no.2 is also taken for consideration: “2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT