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

208 ITR 863High Court1994#4424 most cited

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

A High Court cannot cancel the registration of a scientific research association retrospectively. Therefore, a deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) based on such a cancelled registration must be allowed.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd v CIT · 208 ITR 863 · section 35(1)(ii) · cancellation of registration · retrospective cancellation · deduction for scientific research · High Court ruling

Sections most often in play

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35CCASection 148Section 263Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 256(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)(ii)section 35(1)section 35section 260section 260asection 12aasection 26accommodation entrysection 133asection 263section 143(2)india

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

Raj Karan Dassani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2346/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 16Section 250Section 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…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd vs. JCIT [2014] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 185 TTJ 205 8. Jeewanlal Ltd vs. ACIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal) 5. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has started the ho…

M/S P. R. Rolling Mills P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)
Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…onsideration, when the assessee made the donation to SHGPH. Therefore in view of the explanation to section 35(1) (ii), disallowance of weighted deduction on the donation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- deserves to be deleted. - B.P. Agarwalla & Sons Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal.) 208 ITR 863 (case law PB 78-81) - CIT Vs. General Magnets Ltd. (Calcutta) 253 ITR 471(case law PB 72-74) - Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT (Calcutta) 251 ITR 707 (case law PB 75-77) - K.M. Scientific Rresearch Centre Vs. Laxman Prasad (Allahabad) - Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. IAC (Bombay) 184 ITR 123 - Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Guahati…

Vora Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 532/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 14ASection 35(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(viia)

…sessee 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…

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

ITA 333/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 131Section 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…

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…information called for by the Assessing Officer and submitted by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT [251 ITR 707] submits that 6 M/s Axcel Global Services ITA No.2446/Mum/2014, A.Y.2009-10 assessment cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act based on subsequent events. Finally, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [243 ITR 83] submits that the Assessing Office…

M/S Spml Infra Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 134/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…en to the CIT not only to consider the record of that proceeding but also the record relating to that proceeding available to him at the time of examination." The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court itself in a subsequent decision in B.P.Agarwalla & Sons Ltd. Vs. CIT 208 ITR 863 (Cal) made a remark that the CIT can certainly take into consideration subsequent information for the purpose of initiating proceedings under s. 263 so that an assessment order which was good when it was made in the light of such subsequent information may appear erroneous. Under the analogous provisions of the WT Act, 1957, the Kerala High Court…