In Brief
Wipro Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit, claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act in its original return for 2001-02 but later filed a revised return withdrawing the exemption claim and seeking to carry forward losses. The key issue was whether the statutory requirement to file a declaration under Section 10B(8) before the due date of filing the return was mandatory or merely directory. The Supreme Court held that both conditions—filing a declaration in writing AND filing it before the due date—are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Exemption provisions require literal compliance and cannot be relaxed on procedural grounds. The Court thus allowed the Revenue's appeal, rejecting the assessee's attempt to withdraw the exemption claim after the filing deadline had passed.", "summary_100"/> <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Andhra Cotton Mills Limited, [1996] 219 ITR 404 (AP)", "case_name": "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Andhra Cotton Mills Limited", "cited_year": "1996", "paragraph": "3.4", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, New Delhi v. Moser Baer India Limited, ITA No. 950/2007, decided on 14.05.2008", "case_name": "Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, New Delhi v. Moser Baer India Limited", "cited_year": "2008", "paragraph": "3.8, 4.6, 4.9, 13", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act."}, {"raw_citation": "(2014) 6 SCC 444", "case_name": "Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana", "cited_year": "2014", "paragraph": "3.10", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "(2018) 9 SCC 1", "case_name": "Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company and others", "cited_year": "2018", "paragraph": "3.10", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 12 SCC 272", "case_name": "CIT, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd.", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "4.6, 4.7, 11", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions."}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 1", "case_name": "CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.", "cited_year": "2017", "paragraph": "4.11", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics ((1994) 209 ITR 63)", "case_name": "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics", "cited_year": "1994", "paragraph": "4.8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Panama Chemical Works, 2006 SCC OnLine MP 704", "case_name": "CIT v. Panama Chemical Works", "cited_year": "2006", "paragraph": "4.10(iv)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corp. ILR 2002 (1) P&H 438", "case_name": "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corp.", "cited_year": "2002", "paragraph": "4.10(v)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Hardeodas Aggarwala Trust; 1991 SCC OnLine Cal.414", "case_name": "CIT v. Hardeodas Aggarwala Trust", "cited_year": "1991", "paragraph": "4.10(vi)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Gupta Fabs, 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 1315", "case_name": "CIT v. Gupta Fabs", "cited_year": "2005", "paragraph": "4.10(vii)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Murali Export House v. CIT, 1995 SCC OnLine Cal. 286", "case_name": "Murali Export House v. CIT", "cited_year": "1995", "paragraph": "4.10(viii)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Cal. 869", "case_name": "CIT v. Berger Paints India Ltd.", "cited_year": "2002", "paragraph": "4.10(ix)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Ramani Relator's (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Mad. 12717", "case_name": "CIT v. Ramani Relator's (P) Ltd.", "cited_year": "2014", "paragraph": "4.10(x)", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "CIT v. Rana Polycot Ltd. 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 17591", "case_name": "CIT v. Rana Polycot Ltd.", "cited_year": "2011", "paragraph": "4.9", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Telangana State Pollution Board v. CBDT (Writ Petition No. 4834/2020, decided on 26.07.2021)", "case_name": "Telangana State Pollution Board v. CBDT", "cited_year": "2021", "paragraph": "4.8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.