How many judgments cite B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (208 ITR 863), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35(1)(ii), Section 35CCA, Section 148, Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 144B.

B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT

208 ITR 863High Court1994#4429 most cited

What is B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee should not suffer due to a mistake committed by the department, and the withdrawal of approval for a donation to a society should have prospective, not retrospective, effect.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT · 208 ITR 863 · section 35(1)(ii) · section 35CCA · withdrawal of approval · retrospective effect · department mistake · prospective effect

Sections most often in play

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35CCA Section 148 Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 256(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)(ii)section 35(1)section 35 section 260 section 260a section 12aa section 26 accommodation entry section 133a section 263 section 143(2)india

Judgments citing B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

…in the case of Jubiliant Organosys vs CIT [2004] 265 ITR 420 held that the Commissioner under section 263 can correct both the errors of fact as well as error of law. We have also noted that Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Jai Kumar Kankaria vs CIT 251 ITR 707 has also echoed the same line of thinking as of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Venkatakrishna Rice co. (supra) that if Revenue is losing tax because of an erroneous order of the assessing authority, the assessment order would be deemed to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 14. Section 69C extracted hereinabove clearly postulates that th…

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus General Magnets Ltd.; (2002) 256 ITR 471 wherein the Court after taking note of various decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT U. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdra…

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2285/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

MAA KAILADEVI OIL INDUSTRIES,MORENA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bheem Nagar, Ater Road, Gwalior Porsa, Morena, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aasfm4432G Assessee By : Shri Ramakant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramakant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Vs. Pr. CIT, Bheem Nagar, Ater Road, Gwalior Porsa, Morena, MP (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AASFM4432G Assessee by : Shri Ramakant Gupta, CA Revenue by: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/10/2025 O R D E R PER SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the ld. Pr. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior[“Ld. Pr. CIT”, fo…

NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NADIA vs. THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA 1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathancathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3Rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Aadcc 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.03.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051484765(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Had Disallowed The Assessee'S Donation Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made To M/S Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (Hhbrf) Which Have The Approval U/S.35(1)(Ii) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Disallowance Made Was To An Extent Of Rs.12,25,000/-. It Was The Submission That On Appeal, Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Nor The Reply To The Remand Report Confirmed

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Cathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 AADCC 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Miraz D. Shah, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an…

ATLANTIS IT SOLUTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, SR DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 80G(5)

…essee for deduction of the amount which has accrued to the assessee on the basis of the payment to an approved society under section 35CCA of the Act.” Identical view was expressed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.P.Agarwalla & sons Ltd (1994)(208 ITR 863). 20. In the instant case, the assessee has given the donation of Rs.50.00 lakhs to M/s Bioved Research Society. In the assessment order passed by the AO in the hands of the above said society, he has only recommended for cancellation of the approval granted u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. According to Ld A.R, the said approval has not been cancelled…

J G ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.,O,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1145/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 40

…n the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus General Magnets Ltd. ; (2002) 256 ITR 471 wherein the Court after taking note of various decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[l 998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Put. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdr…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

…n the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus General Magnets Ltd. ; (2002) 256 ITR 471 wherein the Court after taking note of various decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdra…

SURENDRA KUMAR KAPUR. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1354/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1354/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surendra Kumar Kapur ………. Appellant (Pan: Afxpk4223K) Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. I.T.A. No. 1354/Kol/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Surendra Kumar Kapur 2. Though Registry Has Reported That This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 62 Days However, Considering The Date Of Receipt Of The Impugned Order, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing This Appeal. We, Therefore, Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…rt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus General Magnets Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 471 wherein the Court after taking note of various decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) ua., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal) B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal) K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23] Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123 CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785 Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644 held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal…

AVINASH INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 31/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Avinash Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company) Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Aabcj32884H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Malu Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 15JSection 263

…ial cannot be said to be part of record and cannot be examined for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Also reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 707 (Cal.). In its order it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the term “erroneous” will be looked into from the facts and circumstances and the material which was placed before the A.O at the time of the assessment and there was no scope u/s. 263 to reopen an assessment on the basis of a subsequent event or any new material. 17. We have gi…

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOPARIWALA EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6327/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R

Section 133DSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ITA No.6327/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 1 DCIT, CC-8(1) Vs. Sopariwala Exports Pvt. ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DCIT, CC-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21st Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AACCS1620D Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R Respondent by : Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R Date of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2021 ORDER PER S. RIF…

MR VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 253(6)(b)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17) Mr. Vaidyanathan Vembu, ACIT-CC-6(2) R. No. 1903, Air India B-1602, Beaumonde, बिधम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Bldg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAIPV5796J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, AR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri A. Mohan, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.10.2020 Date of He…

MR. VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1577/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 253(6)(b)Section 263

MR. VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,2015-16 vs. ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1578/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 253(6)(b)Section 263

UD MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not in order. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not in order. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of of B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd vs CIT reported in 208 ITR 863 ( reported in 208 ITR 863 (Cal) and Jai Kumar Kankaria vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 (Cal) had held that there was no p reported in 251 ITR 707 (Cal) had held that there was no p reported in 251 ITR 707 (Cal) had held that there was no power to cancel the registration retrospectively. Hence even on this count, the deduction claimed u/s cancel th…

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1474/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

…tion to Section 35(1) of the Act. Hence even as per the provisions of the Act, the denial of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not in order. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the caes of B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd vs CIT reported in 208 ITR 863 (Cal) and Jai Kumar Kankaria vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 (Cal) had held that there was no power to cancel the registration retrospectively. Hence even on this count, the deduction claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee deserves to be allowed. 5.6. We find that the ld CITA had made an observation which has been heavily relied upon by…

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1473/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

RAJDA POLYMERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2414/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 16Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…sions of the Act, the denial of deduction U/S 35(1 )(ii) of the Act is not in order. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd vs CIT reported in 208 ITR 63 (Cal) and Jai Kumar Kankaria vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 (Cal) had held that there was no power to cancel the registration retrospectively. Hence even on this count, the deduction claimed U/S 35( I )(ii) of the Act by the assessee deserves to be allowed. 13 ITA No.2414/Kol/19 A.Y 2015-16 5.6. We find that the Id CITA had made an observation which has been heavily relied upon by the Id DR that the ass…

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2446/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh K. Khandwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

…In this regard, the ld. counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co vs. Indian council of Agricultural Research Organization (2000) 241 ITR 0842 dated 7th Oct, 1999 and Agarwalla & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT & Others (1994) 208 ITR 863 dated 5th July, 1993. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the act at the rate of I.T.A No. 2446/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Industrial Engineering Corporation vs…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT -I, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 532/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Soumeh Adak &For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan (CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…A no. 706/Hyd/2013) 2) Jolly Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd vs. ITO (1982) 2 ITD 92 (Asr -ITAT) 3) Punjab Wool Syndicate vs. ITO (2012) 17 ITR 0439 (Chd. – ITAT) 4) Ganga Properties vs. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 447 (Kol) (HC) 5) Jai Kumar Kankaria vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 707 (Kol) (HC) It was also submitted that even if the ‘book profit’ is recomputed in terms of the directions of the Commissioner, the assessee will be entitled for MAT credit of equivalent amount which will be eligible for set-off in subsequent years, thereby resulting in neutralising of tax liability. Therefore, the instant assessment order dated 2…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2