Back
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Wipro Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revenue challenges high court judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on exemption and loss claim. (Para 2) |
| 3. revenue's arguments against exemption claim. (Para 3) |
| 4. assessee's counter-arguments. (Para 4) |
| 5. court's final interpretation of section 10b. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.R. Shah, J.)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No. 462/2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘C’, Bangalore (for short, ‘ITAT’), allowing the assessee’s claim for carry forward of losses under Section 72 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.
2. The respondent-assessee is a 100% export-oriented unit and engaged in the business of running a call centre and IT Enabled and Remote Processing Services. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 for Assessment Year 2001-2002, declaring loss of Rs.15,47,76,990/-a
The court emphasized that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and before the due date of filing ....
Procedural delays in tax filings should not deny substantive benefits, especially when technical difficulties are acknowledged by authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
