How many judgments cite CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam?

106 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam (208 ITR 481), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 44AB, Section 80IA, Section 250, Section 80IA(7).

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 366,418 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 44AB Section 80IA Section 250 Section 80IA(7)Section 80IB Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 206c(6)section 206c(7)section 10b(8)section 80j section 288 section 206 section 80ib section 206c deduction u/s 80ia section 10b

Judgments citing CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam

DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Skill Development Fund, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3647/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(U)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250

…unds of appeal of the Revenue as the law is now settled that the audit report in Form 10B can very well be accepted at any stage of assessment. Reliance is placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, 228 ITR 292 (P&H); CIT vs. Jayant Patel, 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT vs. Magnum Exports Pvt. Ltd., 262 ITR 10 (Kol) that Form No. 10B can be submitted before the appellate authority and it is sufficient compliance since the requirement is directory and not mandatory. 4. Thus, there is no substance in the grounds. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3 ITA No.-3647/Del/2023 National Skill Developm…

Yuva Chintana Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 253(5)

…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…

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

…purposes they were intended to serve” 33. Further, it is pertinent to note that Form 3CEB being an audit report, is directory in nature and can always be filed at a later stage. There is a plethora of cases in this regard including CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that filing of audit report for claiming deduction u/s.80J is directory and not mandatory. The Hon’ble High Court held an audit report produced before the appellate authority is sufficient compliance with section 80J. Similarly, the Gujarat HC in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (219 ITR 721) while…

Vimalbhai Mohanbhai Nariya Prop. S.M. Corporation, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose/

ITA 359/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 359/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Sutaria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 234ESection 234eSection 260CSection 44A

…e High Court of Madras held that - "the assessee VIMALBHAI M. NARIYA PROP. v. ITO having filed statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following in decision of this court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question. iii. That the assessee is not liable to collect TCS from Manufacturer and only the details of declaration are to be included in the Return of TCS. As no credit of the TCS to be availed by any party hence, there is no loss to revenue, being a venial breach…

Fat East Trading Establishment, Kayamkulam vs. ITO, Ward No.1, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreejith R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

…re us in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that penalty cannot be levied as the audit report was furnished before completion of the assessment in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994} 208 ITR 481. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, placing reliance on the orders of lower authorities submitted that no interference is called for. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chavakkad Service C…

Swami Satyaprakashnand Shiv Mandir Trust, Udham Singh Nagar vs. AO (Exemption), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…i High Court in the case in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD- (2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N. )(1994) 208 ITR 481 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. 6. That is also the consistent view of…

Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee Trust, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…of income. 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 Pvt Ltd (…

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…of the Act constitutionally valid, the only alternative or workable solution is that the audit report should be made available before the assessment is made : (vide K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) and followed in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad)); (ii) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6, interpreting section 32AB(5) itself, which is the subject matter in the present appeal, held that the submission of the audit report is directory, but not mandatory. According to the Full Bench, the assessees claim for deduction…

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

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

…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. Th…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

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

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

…i High Court in the case in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N.)-(1994) 208 ITR 481 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. 6. That is also the consistent view o…

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

…kal Relief Fund (295 CTR 561)  CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 25 Mad)  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 FIR 63 (Born.)  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.) 4. The learned DR relied on the Order of…

Aegis Value Homes Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshaegis Value Homes Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Ef-10, 2Nd Floor, Inderpuri, Delhi-1, Delhi-110012 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakca6311M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cir Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIR DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44Section 80Section 80J

…ad with Section 139 of the Act stood complied with and there is no need to levy penalty under Section 271B of the Act. In fact, similar issue was subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. A N Arunachalam reported in 208 ITR 481 (Mad) wherein deduction under Section 80 J of the Act was granted by the Hon’ble Madras High Court which was denied by the revenue to that assessee for want of Audit Report in the prescribed form not filed along with the return of income. In that case, the Audit Report in the prescribed form for claiming deduction under Section 80 J of the Act wa…

Sri City Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.807/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri City Private Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Chennai Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Aajcs8887M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

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

…rievance letter addressed to the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bengaluru on 22/06/2022. The appellant further took support from certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arunachalam reported in (1994) 208 ITR 481 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 249. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that filing of audit report is directory in nature and if such audit report is filed on or before the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(1) or u/s 143(3)…

Lotusdew Wealth and Investment Advisors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 791/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.791/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 139(1)Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.791/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Lotusdew Wealth and Investment Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Advisors Private Ltd. Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-5(1) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Ajay Rotti, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 22/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronounceme…

Jimmy George, Kottayam vs. The ITO Circle & Tps, Kottayam

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

ITA 360/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Jimmy George, Vs. Builders Merchant, Circle & Tps, Mc Road, Thellakom P.O, Kottayam Kottayam. Pan – Agapg 4989 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Giriy Albert, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 8o

…/Coch/2018 committed technical venial breach which created any loss to the exchequer as the audit report was available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam (208 ITR 481) in the context of filing of audit report for claiming deduction u/s. 8oJ of the Act, observed that once audit report has been made available before the Ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, the assessee should be granted deduction u/s. 8oJ of the Act. We observe that this judgment was rendered in the context of a…

G.C Vidyadevi, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 5, Alappuzha

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

ITA 280/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Gc Vidyadevi, Vs. Thuruthel Marine Fuels, Ward – 5, Alappuzha Range, Kuzhithura P.O, Alappuzha. Karunagappaly, Kollam – 690 542. Pan – Amupv 6583 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv Revenue By : Smt. Giriy Albert, Snr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Snr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 8o

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…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…

Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…i High Court in the case in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N.)-(1994) 208 ITR 481 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. 6. That is also the consistent view of…