Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT

161 ITR 159Supreme Court of India1986#2360 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT · section 147 · section 148 · section 153A · section 139(1) · section 139(5) · reassessment proceedings · search assessments · return of income · scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

27 Taxmann 295

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 148 Section 154 Section 132 Section 139(5)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 11b section 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)convertible foreign exchange section 2(45)section 153(a)section 158bb(1)section 153a(1)(a)section 139(5)section 10b section 153a proceedings

Judgments citing Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…being disallowed under the section claimed but if that expenditure is allowable/deductible as per other provisions of act. In this connection, we draw the kind attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 wherein it has been held that Assessing Officer is duty bound to grant the exemption/ deduction M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT even where assessee failed to claim the same. The operation para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :- "An obligation is imposed on the Income-tax Officer by section 84 of the Income-ta…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

M/S Karakulam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 57/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…of the contention that relief not claimed in assessment proceedings cannot be granted by rectification if there were no materials on record to support the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.…

M/S Karakulam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 40/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

M/S Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1539/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Crystal Crop Protection (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit, Gi-17, G.T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Circle-6(2) Delhi-110033 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj3574E Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2Section 254

…h assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should" 21. Further, we also note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts on record, the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of allowability of the claim, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to raise the issue at appellate levels. 22. Having said so, the issue whether the Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy can be treated as capital rece…

DCIT- 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3708/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…in the present case are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Tribunals as discussed above. Therefore the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 has held that if on the basis of material placed on the record, the assessee s entitled to claim any deduction but forget to make his claim in the return or in the course of assessment proceedings then assessee is entitled to make such claim by moving application under section 154 for rectification since non-grating of deduction/exemption would a…

ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata vs. Smt Sharmila Kumar, Howrah

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…ts with assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should” 18. Moreover we note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons given above, the revenue’s ground of appeal is dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2018 (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Dated : 14th May, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata. 2…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pavel Garg, New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations

ITA 5381/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmod, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…no reason as to why the appellate authority did not have the power to modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if it was not raised before the ITO. The Hon’ble Apex Court in another judgment in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 161 ITR 159 held that where the assessee had omitted to claim deduction and if precise and clear material is available on record to the fact that the assessee is entitled to such relief, then the income tax authority is required to grant such relief. 5.11 Coming back to the issue before us, the facts are undisputed. It is settled law that income is said to…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…inion, assessee is entitled to claim deduction if such claim is made by assessee before the completion of assessment proceedings. The above view of ours is also fortified by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 wherein it has been held that if on the basis of material placed on the record, the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction but forget to make his claim in the return or in the course of assessment proceedings then assessee is entitled to make such claim by moving application under section 154 for rectification since non- granting of deductio…