COPY OF JUDGEMENT

[onlinetaxupdation]

Dear Members,

Can any one provide me the copy of the following judgment, its very urgent:

 

Gaylord Constructions Vs ITO (2008) 175 Taxman (Magz) 99 Cohin

 

Gujco Carriers v. CIT (2002) 122 Taxman 206 (Guj.)

 

 

Regards,

CA. Roshan Agrawal

 

 

 

[paras kochar]

Dear Mr. Roshan,

You can get the Gujco Carriers v. CIT (2002) 122 Taxman 206 (Guj.) Case Law from my website www.incometaxparaskochar.com. Just go to the Case Law tab there and there you can view and download the PDF version of the Case Law. Will Let you also know about the second Case Law as soon as it is uploaded to my website.

Paras Kochar, Advocate

10, Princep Street

Kolkata - 72

Phn : 22374749, 40048593

www.incometaxparaskochar.com

---

From: onlineta...@gmail.com
To: foru...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PDRUNGTA] COPY OF JUDGEMENT
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:46:45 +0530

--
forum4ca is a Google Group of eServe online for the benefit of CA and other professionals. It is especially meant for written discussion & circulate information within group members. The mail may contain such research/advice/opinion/information/fact provided by any member and are subject to the accuracy and of the description of facts.The forum4ca, do not claim that contains in mail/information obtained after reading as a complete and accurate disclosure of relevant facts. Further this Group’s Owner/Moderator/Member are not liable for any damages or costs suffered due to action/transaction based on information on this Group.
 
To join and/or to post to this group send email: foru...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to:forum4ca+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at:http://groups.google.co.in/group/forum4ca or www.eserveonline.net

[rameshchand jain]

Enclosed find herewith judgement

---

From: onlineta...@gmail.com
To: foru...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PDRUNGTA] COPY OF JUDGEMENT
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:46:45 +0530

[Saroj Mallik]

Dear Members,

 

Can anyone provide me the copy of the judgment of the below mentioned case:

 

CIT (Appeals) Vs ARB Software (india) Limited – for non-allowability of Section 10B Exemption/ deduction.

 

It is urgent.

 

CA Saroj Mallik

[P K Agarwal]

Dear Mr Mallik,

Right now, I am unable to provide You the copy of the Case Law of ARB Software sought by you.

 

However, I understand that the claim of the assessee U/s 10B has been rejected by the AO on the pretext that the 100% EOUnit registered with STPI has not obtained approval from the Board. In alternate You wish to know whether deduction U/s 10A can be claimed now on the basis of letter.

 

Please find attached here with some of the decisions which may be useful in case of your client.

I would like to bring to your kind notice the following:

 

In case of Kwal Pro Exports Vs ACIT the Jodhpur bench of ITAT has held “Simply because the assessee’s claim for exemption U/s 10B stands disallowed, it cannot be restrained from claiming deduction u/s 80HHC, if otherwise entitled to-Denial of larger benefit can not foreclose the assessee from smaller benefit otherwise available under law-matter remanded for consideration of assessee’s claim u/s 80HHC.

 

The assessee, if otherwise eligible, may claim deduction u/s 10A (before the assessment is completed) on the basis of the letter keeping in the view the decision of Hydrabad bench in the case of Techtran Polylenses Ltd Vs ITO where it held “Even though the assessee did not exercise option u/s 10B(8) not to avail benefit u/s 10B at the time of filing return, its application withdrawing the claim u/s 10B before the assessment was completed could not be rejected by the AO; consequently the assessee would be entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business losses.”

 

The decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in case of Ramesh P Modi Vs CIT may also help the assessee. The AO allowed assessee’s claim u/s 10B after verifying approval obtained by the assessee from the Office of  the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Ministry of Commerce as per the prescribed procedure. The CIT was not allowed to make revision simply because he held a different view that the approval was required to be obtained from the Board of approvals.

 

In case of Integrated database India Ltd as well as Web Commerce India Pvt Ltd, the Delhi HC has held ,rejecting the contention of the Revenue that unless and until the audit report is filed along with the Return, the benefit U/s 10A cannot be available to the assessee, that filing of Audit Report is directory as long as the audit report is filed before framing of the assessment Order.

Thanks & Regard

Pawan 

CA P K Agarwal
madanlala...@vsnl.net

 

MADANLAL & ASSOCIATES
Chartered Accountants
29A, Rabindra Sarani
3rd floor Room No 9
Kolkata 700 073

 

Ph 033 2235 3484 (O)
             2548 1296 (R)
          9830262464 (M)

----- Original Message -----

From: Saroj Mallik

To: foru...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:05

Subject: RE: [PDRUNGTA] COPY OF JUDGEMENT

Dear Members,

 

Can anyone provide me the copy of the judgment of the below mentioned case:

 

CIT (Appeals) Vs ARB Software (india) Limited – for non-allowability of Section 10B Exemption/ deduction.

 

It is urgent.

 

CA Saroj Mallik

From: foru...@googlegroups.com [mailto:foru...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of paras kochar
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:53 PM
To: foru...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [PDRUNGTA] COPY OF JUDGEMENT

 

Dear Mr. Roshan,

[Saroj Mallik]

Dear Pawn ji,

 

Thanks a lot for your quick response. Please provide me the ARB software case in case it is available to you. In my clients case AO disallowed the claim u/s 10B as the same has not been approved by the Board of Approval. The co. is also registered with  STPI in the year 2002 but the AO disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee was not confirmed the registration in writing. This is the back ground of the case and if any one find any case law in this regard pl. mail me the same.