B.G. Chitale v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

116 TTJ 658Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22110 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing B.G. Chitale v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

M/S Siddharth Natural Food Resources Private Limited, Kundaim vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 187/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Siddharth Natural Food Resources Private Limited, Plot No.83, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aalcs5815K बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.50,00,194/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.50,00,194/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.50,00,194/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…f the Act only from the assessment year 2010-11. 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order placing reliance on the decision of Pune ITAT Special Bench in the case of B. J. Chitale, 116 TTJ 658 rendered in the context of provisions of section 80-I and section 80HHA of the Act held 3 that the term “processing” does not include production. Accordingly, he denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. When the ma…

M/S Goa Natural Foods Private Limited, Kundaim vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 188/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.188/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Goa Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.37 & 38, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccg7564Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…f the Act only from the assessment year 2010-11. 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order placing reliance on the decision of Pune ITAT Special Bench in the case of B. J. Chitale, 116 TTJ 658 rendered in the context of provisions of section 80-I and section 80HHA of the Act held 3 that the term “processing” does not include production. Accordingly, he denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. When the ma…

B.G. Chitale v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (116 TTJ 658) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax