16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad v. Dy. CIT 120191

177 ITD 672Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#17018 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 10AA Section 10B Section 11 Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12 Section 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)section 139(5)income-tax officer section 139(1)section 12a section 10 section 12 section 139 section 80 section 143(1)section 11 previous year

Judgments citing 16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad v. Dy. CIT 120191

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…8 ITR 135 (Delhi): XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [20091 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi): XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. 120151 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad. v. Dy. CIT 120191 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.): 9. Further, we are also an agreement for the Counsel for the assessee that the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 108 of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim…

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

…e (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 8 ITR (T) 172 / 49 SOT 67 (Ahmedabad) (URO), DCIT v Kamdhenu Builders and Developers / I.T.A no 7010/Mum/2010, dated-27/01/2016 (ITAT)(Mum), DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), [2019] 177 ITD 672 (Kolkata -Trib.),Rajendra Pal Verma, v. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 211 (Mum) (Trib.),ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu. (2019) 177 ITD 308 (Mum) (Trib.) etc. 9.2 Therefore, in the background of above decisions and facts of the case, the denial of claim of deduction of the assessee made through revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedin…

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…ITR 135 (Delhi); XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi); XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (All.); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.). 6.3. In light of the above facts and judicial pronouncements, we find that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to technical issues and was beyond the control of the assessee. The procedural requirement should not deny the substantive claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. M/S. Vishram Developers, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1794/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 80ASection 80I

…lf. The assessee became eligible to claim deduction under section 10AA; there would be no statutory bar provided in section 80A(5) as there was no failure on part of assessee to claim such deduction. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), [2019] 177 ITD 672 (Kolkata -Trib.) E. In the Explanatory Notes, the Board had clarified that the provisions of section 80A(5) were enacted to prevent the misuse of multiple deductions claimed in respect of the same profits and therefore necessary safeguards was put in place in section 80A. It was not intended to deny legitimate deduction to which the assessee is o…