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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

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 of this clause shall

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHESLIND, TEXTILES LTD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation and correctly determine deduction allowable under Section 10B in the assessing order. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had preferred an appeal. 3. The Tribunal held that Assessing Officer had adopted one of the permissible views and such an order cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

4 treated as capital asset and consequential depreciation is allowable? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in the business of software development and consultancy services. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2007-08 claiming deduction under Section 10B

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) as its objections were rejected by the DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in part. 5. The draft assessment order was passed on 28.3.2013 inter alia proposing;- “a) reduction of the deduction claimed under Section

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) as its objections were rejected by the DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in part. 5. The draft assessment order was passed on 28.3.2013 inter alia proposing;- “a) reduction of the deduction claimed under Section

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

4. In respect of claim of the assessee for computation of profit of overseas software development center, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue in the light of the order passed in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and Assessment Year 2007-08. In respect of exclusion of interest income

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

4 of Section 10A which provides for pro rata exemption, necessarily involving deduction of the profits arising out of domestic sales, is one instance of deduction provided by the amendment. Profits of an eligible unit pertaining to domestic sales would have to enter into the computation under the head “profits and gains from business” in Chapter IV and denied

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation of non 10B unit cannot be set off against the income of the 4 10B unit without taking into consideration the amendment to section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S.MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 10B should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of this Court in the case of TATA Elaxsi, which has not become final since the SLP preferred by Revenue is pending before Apex Court on this issue? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal justified in law in holding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation was also not allowed. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 25.02.2013 inter alia held that advance of Rs.53.77 Crores given to M/s Hinduja Relators Pvt. Ltd. is only out of commercial expediency and can be considered as advance for business purpose. It was further held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10B(1) w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and recorded a perverse finding.” 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA