PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance of claim under Section 10B even when the assessee has not satisfied the requirements of said provision to claim

SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the tribunal insofar as

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10B of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 disallowed

M/S METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10B(3) of the Act and the same was realized in convertible foreign currency by a third party. The Assessing Officer therefore, disallowed

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 10B of the Act only to the extent of direct export made by the appellant and disallowed the claim

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S. LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Section 10B of the Act and such Returns being filed and deduction being claimed, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). - 3 - 2. The assessee had earned interest from the following sources:- 1. Deposits lying in the EEFC account and 2. Advancing of inter-corporate loans out of the funds of the undertaking. The assessee had outstanding borrowings by way of External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs in short

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. M/S SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

disallowing deduction was set aside and deduction was granted to the assessee under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

M/S SUTURES INDIA (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the common order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.8,79,18,006/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by orders dated 23.12.2011 and 27.02.2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively completed the assessment and disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S L.G SOFT INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowance by the Assessing Officer under Section 10A of the Act. The High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment held as follows :- 7 “We have already noted the factual position. It is an accepted and admitted fact that the undertaking was formed or created by HICS and there is no allegation or finding by the Assessing Officer that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S L.G SOFT INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowance by the Assessing Officer under Section 10A of the Act. The High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment held as follows :- 7 “We have already noted the factual position. It is an accepted and admitted fact that the undertaking was formed or created by HICS and there is no allegation or finding by the Assessing Officer that

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 Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144(C)(13) by holding that the above profit was not eligible for deduction and hence, disallowed

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

10B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144(C)(13) by holding that the above profit was not eligible for deduction and hence, disallowed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowance under Section 14(a)(i)(a) of the Act be made. The Tribunal, by an order dated 30.09.2016, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue and allowed the cross-objection preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6 4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the first substantial question

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

section 10B of the Act by following its earlier order passed in the case of the assessee even when the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions set out in the said provision and the orders relied upon by the Tribunal has not reached finality? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right