370 ITR 305 (Cal.) and Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT

407 ITR 16High Court2018#25020 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80AC Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

prescribed business

Judgments citing 370 ITR 305 (Cal.) and Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT

THE KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 1449 ERICKAVU,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram Service .......... Appellant Cooperative Bank Ltd No. 1449, Erickavu P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha, Kerala [Pan: Aaabt 3036 B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu C S, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…ver, learned CIT(A) after making reference to the provisions of section 80AC and the judgments of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 305 (Cal.) and Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT [2018] 407 ITR 16 (Cal.) held that when the conditions precedent laid down by u/s. 80AC of the Act were not fulfilled, the benefit of provisions of section 80P cannot be allowed, as the conditions laid down in section 80AC are mandatory in nature and filing of return of income within due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) is also mandatory. 3 The Kumarapuram Service Co-o…

THE N.D.D. P AND T E.C.C SOCIETY LTD.,,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.611/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Nddp & Tec Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd, Ward-1 Nellore. Nellore. Pan:Aactt5322J (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri M. Chandra Mouleswara निर्धारितीती द्वारा Rao, C.A /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandra MouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

…man 165 (Calcutta)(Mag.)[2015] 370 ITR 305 (Calcutta)/[2015] 273 CTR 106 (Calcutta) • The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Suolificio Linea Italia (India)(P.) Ltd. V JCIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 462 (Calcutta)/[2018] 255 Taxman 477 (Calcutta)/[2018] 407 ITR 16 (Calcutta) Page 28 of 29 AACTT5322J- THE N.D.D. P&T E.C.C. SOCIETY LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056964246(1) • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Natth Khanna v CIT [2014] 135 Taxman 327 (SC)/[2014] 266 ITR 1(SC)/[2014] 187 CTR 97 (SC) • The ITAT Rajkot Bench (SPECIAL BENCH) in the case of Saffire Garments v ITO [2012]…

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…de in the original return filed nor was the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB filed along with it,prima-facie appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s.801A. It has been held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Suolificio linea Italia Pvt Ltd Vs.JCIT 407 ITR 16 (Cal) [2018] that where the assessee failed to file return by the prescribed due date specified uls.139(1), its claim for deduction u/s.801B could not be allowed even though the return has been filed at a later stage. Similar view has been expressed by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Siroya Developers 78 taxmann.com 19 [2017]. It has been h…