Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Penwalt India Ltd. on 24 April, 1991
19. We also hold that this decision is in line with the judgment of the
jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Penwalt India Ltd. 196 ITR 813
(Bom.).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Pvt. ... on 27 April, 1970
Similarly he relied on the
decision in the case of CIT vs. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. 191 ITR 92
(Bom.).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Ciba Pharma Private Limited on 21 January, 1965
as well as on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of
CIT vs. New Pharma Private Ltd. 137 ITR 879 (Bom.).
Section 72 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
International Airport Authority Of ... vs Dcit, Special Range-14 on 27 December, 2004
6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the loss of
Rs.47,75,070/- was assessed and allowed to be carried forward for A.Y. 2002-03.
Since, no deduction u/s.10A of the Act was claimed for A.Y. 2002-03, the loss can
be set off against the profits determined as taxable in the subsequent years. He
contended that w.e.f. 1/4/2001, section 10A is a deduction provision and not an
exemption provision. To support his claim, the learned counsel relied on the
decision of Honeywell International (India) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2007] 108 TTJ 924
(Del.) for the proposition that the retrospective amendment by Finance Act 2003,
w.e.f. 1/4/2001 to section 10A(6) does away with restriction of carry forward and
set off of losses.
Income-Tax Officer vs Warden And Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. on 13 August, 1982
He further relied on the decision of the
Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Techdrive (India) (P) Ltd. (2010)
124 ITD 249 for the proposition that under section 10B it is not the requirement
that the assessee should own plant and machinery or equipment and
manufacture or produce computers software on the same, in order to be eligible
for the exemption. The assessee getting computer software developed in its
subsidiary under its direct supervision is entitled to exemption u/s 10B. He
pointed out that the AO has himself allowed deduction u/s 80HHE and argued
that the conditions u/s 80HHE are similar to that of section 10B. Alternatively he
8
submits that in case the AO feels that onsite employees belong to the unit which
is exempt u/s 10A, then consequential relief should be granted u/s 10A. He
prayed that the order of the first appellate authority be upheld.
1