TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the rebate expenses, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence to conclusively determine their nature and compliance with TDS provisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals late with the ITAT. The tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals concerned disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for prior period adjustments and rebate expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, and whether the disallowance of prior period adjustments and rebate expenses was justified, particularly concerning the nature of expenses and TDS compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 253(3),Section 253(5),Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194H,Section 37(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT46 citing25 Taxmann.com 364 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe26 citing5 ITR 621 · 1937 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Petrofils Co-operative Limited5 citing130 Taxmann.com 191 · 2021 · SC
- 71 ITD 734 citing71 ITD 73 · 1999 · ITAT
- CIT v. KMC Speciality Hospitals India Private Limited4 citing130 Taxmann.com 215 · 2021 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Petrofils Co-operative Limited4 citing130 Taxmann.com 190 · 2021 · HC
- Singla Agencies v. ACIT3 citing60 ITD 410 · 1997 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO& SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
PER BENCH:
These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for assessment year 2012-13 has been filed by assessee before tribunal against appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A) in Appeal Number: CIT(A), Allahabad/10444/2015-16 , the appellate proceedings had arisen befor
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Triveni Glass Limited, Allahabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), AllahabadAllahabad14 Oct 2021Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the rebate expenses, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence to conclusively determine their na...
- Chandrashekar Hemanth, Bengaluru vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(4) Bangalore…Bangalore6 Jan 2025Remanded
Also relies on General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
The Tribunal held that the losses brought forward were from AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, for which returns were filed in time. The belated filing of the AY 2016-17 return did not affect the carry forward and set off of losse...
- M/S. Shangrila Latex Industries Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4…Surat28 Sept 2022Allowed
Also relies on General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
The Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation available on April 1, 2002, is to be governed by the amended Section 32(2) and can be carried forward and set off without any time limit. Consequently, the disallowance ...
- M/S Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari My.Dairy… vs DCIT -1 (1), BhopalIndore28 Jun 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
The Tribunal held that interest on grants and subsidies is taxable as income from other sources, and interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business deduction. The issue of bad debts was not elaborated upon i...
- Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs Vijay Vision Private Limited, MumbaiMumbai22 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. The decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that no substantial question of law arises in a...
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026