Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.91 seconds)Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Section 10B in Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sak Soft Ltd on 13 June, 2007
In the case of Sak Soft Ltd. (supra), the assessee was engaged
in the business of exporting computer software and claimed deduction u/s
10B of the Act. In concluding the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO
reduced the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange in providing the
technical services outside India from the export turnover without
corresponding reduction from total turnover, thereby reducing the
deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10B of the Act.
7.5. In the light of the above facts, the Special Bench held as
under:
Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 September, 2010
(ii) M/s. Marubeni India Private Ltd v. Addl CIT in ITA NO.945/Del/2009.
Section 1 in Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd., India ... on 21 September, 1994
(1) M/s. iPolicy Network Pvt. Ltd v. ITO - ITA No.5504/Del/2010
(2)Symantec Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA No.7894/Mum/2010
(3) SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT 2010-T II-44-ITT-BANG-TP;
(4) TNT India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA No.1442 (Bang) 2008
(5) Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA
NO.1231(BANG)/2010
(6) Diageo India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No. 8602(Mum) 20210
(7) Exxon Mobil Co. India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No.8311/Mum/2010
(8) Emerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA
No.8118/Mum/2010
(9) Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No.5341/Del/2010;
(10)UE Trade Corporation (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT - 44 SOT 457(Del)Philips
(11) Cummins India Limited v. DCIT - ITA No.277/Pune/07;
(12) CIT v. Kerala Electric Lamp Works (2003)261 ITR 721 (Ker);
(13) CIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd (1995) 211 ITR 400(Del);
(14) K.P.Varghese v. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 & 131 ITR 597 (SC)
(15)Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306(SC)
On the other hand, the Ld. D R, placing strong reliance on the
stand of the authorities below, submitted that 5% was not the standard,
Page 26 of 34 26 ITA No.1354/Bang/2010
but, it was the range within which if the ALP fails, then, the ALP of the
appellant has to be accepted.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
(1) M/s. iPolicy Network Pvt. Ltd v. ITO - ITA No.5504/Del/2010
(2)Symantec Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA No.7894/Mum/2010
(3) SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT 2010-T II-44-ITT-BANG-TP;
(4) TNT India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA No.1442 (Bang) 2008
(5) Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA
NO.1231(BANG)/2010
(6) Diageo India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No. 8602(Mum) 20210
(7) Exxon Mobil Co. India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No.8311/Mum/2010
(8) Emerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT - ITA
No.8118/Mum/2010
(9) Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT - ITA No.5341/Del/2010;
(10)UE Trade Corporation (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT - 44 SOT 457(Del)Philips
(11) Cummins India Limited v. DCIT - ITA No.277/Pune/07;
(12) CIT v. Kerala Electric Lamp Works (2003)261 ITR 721 (Ker);
(13) CIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd (1995) 211 ITR 400(Del);
(14) K.P.Varghese v. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 & 131 ITR 597 (SC)
(15)Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306(SC)
On the other hand, the Ld. D R, placing strong reliance on the
stand of the authorities below, submitted that 5% was not the standard,
Page 26 of 34 26 ITA No.1354/Bang/2010
but, it was the range within which if the ALP fails, then, the ALP of the
appellant has to be accepted.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 vs M/S. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd on 23 June, 2010
7.3. Further, it may worthwhile to recall the ruling of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd (supra) in
identical circumstances, held that since the export turnover forms part of
the total turnover, if an item is excluded from the total turnover to maintain
parity between numerator and denominator while calculating deduction u/s
10A of the Act. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
reads as follows:
Income Tax Officer vs Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. on 11 July, 2008
8. The issue of levying of interest u/s 234B of the Act is
mandatory and consequential in nature and, therefore, it has not been
addressed to. However, interest u/s 234D of the Act for the AY under
consideration has been correctly charged. The action of the AO is in
consonance with the finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi (SB) in the case of
ITO v Ekta Promoters P. Ltd. 305 ITR (AT) 1 (Delhi) (SB).