S. 10A Exemption + S. 197 TDS + S. 271(1)(c) Penalty

CIT vs. TEI Technologies Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court ) (290.0 KiB, 16 DLs)

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) (135.3 KiB, 8 DLs)

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 ) (94.8 KiB, 16 DLs)

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.