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

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

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act to the tune of Rs.21,31,59,892/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 5 4

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

4 return of income on 22.02.2010 declaring an income of Rs.7,57,274/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,44,11,1999/- for Unit No.1 and Rs.3,29,87,814/- for Unit No.2 under Section 10B of the Act. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4 of section 10A, the assessee would be entitled for deduction, as the assessee is a 100% exporter, i.e. the entire business of the assessee consists of development and export of software. The assessing authority did not agree with the said contention and therefore, he disallowed the exemption claimed for the assessment year 2001 – 02. Aggrieved by the said order

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

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the sales made through third parties i.e., export houses and inter unit transfers. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the appellant as Rs.1,09,72,680/- as against the income declared by the appellant of Rs.1,88,920/- and passed an order under Section

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2012 inter alia held that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions required for claiming deduction under Section 10B

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

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

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act with respect to production of iron ore said to have been outsourced by the EOU to the non-EOU and restricted the claim to the profits derived by the EOU from its production. The aforesaid appeals came to be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- VI, Bangalore

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee Company is merely engaged in ‘processing and assembling and not - 3 - manufacturing’ as stipulated under the provisions of Section 10B. In appeal, against the order of Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals), the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income

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

disallowance made under Section 10B of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before 5 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by a common order dated 15.03.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4

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

4. The same is disputed by the assessee. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee contends that the Unit has been running since the last eight years and exemption was consistently granted for eight years. It is only for this year, the same has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Even in terms of Section

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

4. The same is disputed by the assessee. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee contends that the Unit has been running since the last eight years and exemption was consistently granted for eight years. It is only for this year, the same has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Even in terms of Section