The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

255, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that, ―Section 10B cannot be read in isolation of other provisions. It is only an exemption provision. It may be true that even after taking into consideration the unabsorbed depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

255 ITR 273 (SC), and 'INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', 330 ITR 363. 9 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of Section 115JB, which deals with special provisions for payment of tax by certain companies as it was in existence

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

255 ITR 273 (SC). We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the assessee and uphold the order ofthe ld. CIT [A). 9. Thus, Tribuna-l held that appellant had adjusted prior period of expenses of Rs.3,09,504.00 from the net profit Iigure of Rs.3,42,726.OO to arrive at the figure of Rs.33