VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

4) of Section 10B of the I.T. Act. 7. On facts and circumstances of the matter, the learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the disallowance

SYSCOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 43 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 10B with respect to the aforesaid three elements of income on the ground that such incomes do not constitute a first degree profit of the 100% EOU. On appeal, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT held that the provisions of section 10B(4

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

10B or section 10BA and section 80H to 80VV. The action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto the business income of Rs 6,22,44,207/ s income of Rs 6,22,44,207/- is correct

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowances at 0.5% of the income claimed exempt. This ground contended by the assessee is partly allowed. Allowing deduction under section 10B for Pune & Kidderpur units – Ground No. 4

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

4. Sub-section (6) of sections 10A and 10B were amended by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2001. Circular No. 7/2003, dated 5-9-2003 explains the amendments brought by Finance Act, 2003. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: 6 M/s Phoenix Mecano (I) Pvt. Ltd. "20. Providing for carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10B and are in no way dependent on the said new industrial undertakings and therefore cannot be considered and allocated in arriving at the amount of profits derived from the said undertakings. Expenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A disallowance 4

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10B Rs.11,44,12,969/- 2. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) Rs. 5,84,54,070/- 3. Disallowance of premium on FCCB Rs.55,44,94,544/- 4. Disallowance under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

10B or under any of the provisions of Chapter-VIA and again under any other provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has explained that the objective of sec. 80A(4) of the Act is to ensure that double benefit does not result to an assessee in respect of same income. 78. The decision rendered

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

10B or under any of the provisions of Chapter-VIA and again under any other provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has explained that the objective of sec. 80A(4) of the Act is to ensure that double benefit does not result to an assessee in respect of same income. 78. The decision rendered

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

10B or under any of the provisions of Chapter-VIA and again under any other provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has explained that the objective of sec. 80A(4) of the Act is to ensure that double benefit does not result to an assessee in respect of same income. 78. The decision rendered

ITO 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. EVERYDAY HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2936/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

disallowed as it is noticed that your unit was set up in May 2008 whereas the application for registration of new STP unit for the purpose of claim u/s 10B was made on 8.9.2009 which shows that the business was already in existence prior to the setting up of new unit. Hence it violates the condition laid down

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub- section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly, no loss as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section 72 or sub-section (1) or subsection (3) of section

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowed.” 4. The DRP also rejected the objection of the assessee vide Para 3.3. and 3.3.1 as under: - “3.3 We have considered the draft assessment order and the assessee's submissions. As we see, the assessee has sought to establish that the preparation of the dossier tantamount to production of article or thing in terms of Section 10B

FAIRFIELD ATLAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) -I, MUMBAI

10B of the Act. As per the formula stated above, the entire profits of the business are to be taken which are multiplied by the ratio of the export turnover to the total turnover of the business. Sub-section (4) does not require an assessee to establish a direct nexus with the business of the undertaking and once an income

MAXVAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,BELAPUR vs. ITO WD 3, PANVEL, RAIGAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing of deduction under section 10B of the Act. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business

KRUPA TRADING COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

10B(4). Disallowance of claim of deduction it/So 1OB of interest 0 Rs.47,4411- earned on deposit with Gujarat electricity board. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance made by the A.O. of deduction u/s. 1OB of interest of Rs.47,441/-- earned on deposit with Gujarat electricity board without appreciating that keeping such term deposits are kept

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

section 92C(4), the addition of Rs.56.75 crores made to the ALP does not qualify for deduction u/s 10B. Thus, the inclusion of this income while computing deduction u/s 10B was irregular ab- initio. That after exclusion of this deemed income; the deduction admissible u/s 10B was worked out to Rs.46.66 crores. Accordingly assessee got excess deduction u/s 10B

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]” 18. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1977] 106 ITR 1 which reads as under: “……………….The words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]” 18. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1977] 106 ITR 1 which reads as under: “……………….The words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that