| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 2, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| CIT vs. TEI Technologies Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court ) Click here to download the judgement (TEI_Technologies_10A_exemption.pdf) |
| S. 10A is an "exemption" provision even after the amendment and loss of non-10A unit cannot be set-off against s. 10A profits |
| S. 10A, even after the amendment by the FA 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 is an "exemption" provision and the current years and the brought forward loss suffered by a non-EPZ unit cannot be set-off against the s. 10A unit’s profits (Yokogawa India Ltd 341 ITR 385 (Kar), Hindustan Unilever 325 ITR 102 (Bom) & Black and Veatch Consulting (Bom) referred). |
| Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Click here to download the judgement (Serco_197_TDS.pdf) |
|
S. 197 TDS application cannot be rejected for extraneous reasons |
|
U/s 197 read with Rule 28AA, the AO’s decision not to issue a s. 197 certificate for lower TDS on the ground that (a) the assessee had violated the TDS provisions & (b) s. 276B & 271(C) proceedings were pending is not correct as these issues are not relevant to s. 197 |
| CIT vs. Aditya Birla Nova Ltd (Bombay High Court )Click here to download the judgement (aditya_birla_penalty.pdf) |
| Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) is not "per incuriam" |
| The department’s argument that Explanation 1(B) to s. 271(1) mandates levy of penalty where a claim for deduction is not upheld, even though there is disclosure of material facts and that Reliance Petroproducts has not noticed Explanation-1 to s. 271(1) and is “per incuriam” is not acceptable because the entire s. 271(1) was considered. |
Recent Comments