CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam

208 ITR 481High Court1994#1026 most cited

What is CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam authority for?

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming deductions under sections like 80-IA(7) or 80J(6A) is directory, not mandatory, and can be filed at any time before the assessment is finalized.

106

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,405 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam · Madras High Court · audit report filing · section 80-IA(7) · section 80J(6A) · mandatory vs. directory · filing before assessment · deduction under section 80IA · return of income · assessment procedure · claim for deduction

Also reported as

75 Taxmann 529

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ABSection 80IASection 250Section 80IA(7)Section 80IBSection 154

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 206c(6)section 206c(7)section 10b(8)section 80jsection 288section 206section 80ibsection 206cdeduction u/s 80iasection 10b

Judgments citing CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam

C D O Jain Education Society, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Hubli

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

ITA 2570/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 250

…e assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad) and in CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad), held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory)-* but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. That is also the consistent…

Income Tax Officer -1(1), Indore vs. Agroh Toll Highways Private Limited, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

…44/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2021-22 submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A) The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); C…

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80.J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being. CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay): Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT…

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…he audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of section 80J(6A). 6. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 which, again, while considering the provisions of section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 7. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jaya…

Viswateja Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1, Guntur

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

ITA 578/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vs. Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., Income Tax Officer (Tds) -Ward – 1 Boyapalem Village Income Tax Office Boyapalem To Phirangipuram Road Cr Buildings, Kannavari Thota Venkayalapadu Post Guntur – 522001 Edlapadu Mandalam Andhra Pradesh Guntur District – 522233 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv8759M] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(6)

…ed the statutory form, viz., Form Page. No 7 I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/VIZ/2025 Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question. 3. As far as the first question is concerned, it related to sale of cotton waste. According to the Revenue, the said sale should be construed as sale of scrap within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 206C of the Income-tax Act. Explanation (b) of sec…

Viswateja Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1, Guntur

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

ITA 577/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vs. Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., Income Tax Officer (Tds) -Ward – 1 Boyapalem Village Income Tax Office Boyapalem To Phirangipuram Road Cr Buildings, Kannavari Thota Venkayalapadu Post Guntur – 522001 Edlapadu Mandalam Andhra Pradesh Guntur District – 522233 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv8759M] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(6)

…ed the statutory form, viz., Form Page. No 7 I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/VIZ/2025 Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question. 3. As far as the first question is concerned, it related to sale of cotton waste. According to the Revenue, the said sale should be construed as sale of scrap within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 206C of the Income-tax Act. Explanation (b) of sec…

Viswateja Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1, Guntur

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

ITA 576/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 206C

…d.AR in the case of CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that filing of the statutory Form No. 27C being a technical breach was liable to be condoned as held in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [[1994] 208 ITR 481 (Madras)] by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. 18. In the instant case, the assessee has submitted the declarations from the Traders that the use of products which is considered as a raw material for the open-ended spinning mills. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the provisions of se…

Viswateja Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1, Guntur

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

ITA 575/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vs. Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., Income Tax Officer (Tds) -Ward – 1 Boyapalem Village Income Tax Office Boyapalem To Phirangipuram Road Cr Buildings, Kannavari Thota Venkayalapadu Post Guntur – 522001 Edlapadu Mandalam Andhra Pradesh Guntur District – 522233 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv8759M] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(6)

…ed the statutory form, viz., Form Page. No 7 I.T.A.Nos.575, 576, 577 & 578/VIZ/2025 Viswateja Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd., 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question. 3. As far as the first question is concerned, it related to sale of cotton waste. According to the Revenue, the said sale should be construed as sale of scrap within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 206C of the Income-tax Act. Explanation (b) of sec…

ACIT, CC-13, Jhandewalan vs. Sbl Pvt Ltd, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Vs Acit Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-13 Plot No.3, Sector-12, Iie, New Delhi. Sideul, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249403. Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Shaurya Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/10525/17-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Engaged In Manufacturing Of Homoeopathy Medicines In India & Has Two Manufacturing Units Situated At Haridwar Which Are Eligible For Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act & Also Has Units At Jaipur & Sahibabad, Which Are Non-Eligible Units. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 18,85,40,940/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 31.08.2015, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire. In Response, Requisite Details & Replies Were From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions & Replies Filed By The Assessee In Support Of Its Claim, Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee Company At Inr 52,74,33,562/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Estimation Of Income At Sahibabad Plant & Further By Making Disallowance Out Of Various Expenses & By Not Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ic Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…y requirement. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case in CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. reported in [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) by following the judgements of the hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam reported in [1994] 208 ITR 481 and in the case of CIT v. Jayant Patel reported in [2001] 248 ITR 199 held that filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before framing the assessment, the requirement of provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. Further the judgments of hon’ble Ap…

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That…

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That…

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…n case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Ci…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…n case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Ci…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…n case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Ci…

Arif Industries Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

…n case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Ci…

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…. In arriving at such a decision, the Court referred to the decisions cited below: • CIT -Vs- Ace Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 2017 (Kar.) • CIT -Vs- Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del.) • CIT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) • CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) • CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in “CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys…

Mulakala Mohan Krishna, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR
Section 143(1)Section 80I

…ACE Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 8 f) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.Contimeters Electricals () Ltd (2009)317 ITR 249 (Del.) g) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs.AN Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481. h) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) j) CIT-1 vs. M/s. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd 18 Taxmann.com 25 (Mad) k) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engg. Ltd vs. ITO 164 Taxmann.com…

Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha Vs. The I.T.O(E) C-Block, Clock Tower Ward – 1(2) Hari Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAAAG 99224 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) , Mumba…

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…in case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 9 We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CI…