Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)Section 51 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. And Anr. on 5 September, 2005
iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Koshika Telecom Ltd. on 13 February, 2006
i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP)
ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del)
Tax Recovery Officer,Central Range-1 vs Custodian The Special Court( ... on 17 August, 2007
The decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs.
Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of
211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR
7 ITA Nos. 1650 & 2024/Mum/2015
M/s. Ossian Exports
142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was
concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-
2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24-5-2006
issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India
and the definition of service given in the SEZ Act, 2005, which
overrides the word 'service' accruing in Section 10AA by virtue of
Section 51 of the SEZ Act. The assessee engaged in trading in nature
of re-export of imported goods and for the same the assessee was
entitled deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. Facts are similar
before us, as the assessee is engaged in trading of re-export of
imported goods and, therefore, the assessee is entitled for deduction
under Section 10AA of the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 4 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karnal Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. on 23 April, 1999
Further, bringing our attention to other decisions of the Tribunal, Ld
Counsel for the assessee mentioned that they relate to prior to the
amendment to section 10A(4) of the Act. He also relied on the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative
Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) and the judgment of the Bombay High
court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom)
and also on various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well
as various High Courts, copies of which are placed in voluminous
paper book, and submitted that the said judgments were relied upon
by the Tribunal in adjudicating the issue in favour of the assessee in
the said case dated 31.1.2014 (supra).