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 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

Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2095/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 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 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…

Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited (Resultant Entity Post-Merger of Visionary Rcm Infotech (India), Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1516/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1516/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Corrohealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, [Resultant Entity Post-Merger Of Corporate Circle-1(1), Visionary Rcm Infotech (India)], Chennai. Dlf, It Park – Sez, 1B, 3Rd Floor, 1/124, Shivaji Garden, Mount Poonamalee Road, Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu So, Kanchipuram District-600 089. [Pan: Aaicc 4941 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT
Section 80J

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1516/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 v. M/s.CorroHealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, [resultant entity post-merger of Corporate Circle-1(1), Visionary RCM Infotech (India)], Chennai. DLF, IT Park – SEZ, 1B, 3rd Floor, 1/124, Shivaji Garden, Mount Poonamalee Road, Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu SO, Kanchipuram District-6…

Decent Junction Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Kollam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 44ASection 80J

…assessee in this case has committed only technical breach which created no loss to the exchequer of the Government as there was no addition made during the course of assessment. 5.2 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam reported in 208 ITR 481 in the context of filing audit report availed deduction u/s 80J of the Act observed that claim once the audit report has been made available before ld. AO or before the completion of assessment proceeding, the assessee should be granted deduction/s 80J of the Act. 5.3 We observe that this judgement was rendered in the context of adjudication of q…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Astrotech Steels Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 1150/CHNY/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154

…ance. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was not mandatory to file this form and it was a regulatory measure only. 4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd (2009) (318 ITR 135) to support the submissions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DIC Fine Chemicals P. Ltd Vs. DCIT in ITA No.2502/Kol/2018 dated 12-06-2018 and the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in ACIT vs. Hind Speed Tec…

Thekkekunnathu Muhammed Fayas, Ernakulam vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Alwyn Cleetus, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 44ASection 80J

…assessee in this case has committed only technical breach which created no loss to the exchequer of the Government as there was no addition made during the course of assessment. 5.2 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam reported in 208 ITR 481 in the context of filing audit report availed deduction u/s 80J of the Act observed that claim once the audit report has been made available before ld. AO or before the completion of assessment proceeding, the assessee should be granted deduction/s 80J of the Act. 5.3 We observe that this judgement was rendered in the context of adjudication of q…

Copral Energy Private Limited, Krishnagiri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Copral Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No.12, Sipcot, Phase-Ii, Circle-1(1), Krishnagiri District-635 109. Salem. [Pan: Aaacc 8486 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
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 o…

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
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 o…

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…time before the framing of the assessment, there Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 9 of 14 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…

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar DCIT बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJUPS-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. AR " थ"कीओ…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 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 5 I.T.A.No.652/Del/2023 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 hel…

Manoj Kumar Jain Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 593/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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.” CIT(TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Fo…

Manoj Kumar Jain Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 592/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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.” CIT(TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Fo…

Manoj Kumar Jain, Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 591/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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.” CIT(TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Fo…

M/S T vs. Srichakra Limited, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 36/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 36/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tvs Srichakra Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 7-B, Tvs Building, V. Income Tax, West Veli Street, Corporate Circle, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaact-5557-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 801CSection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…m of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had filed a belated return. 7. The CIT(A) erred in not following the judgement of various Courts, particularly the binding judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199. 8. The appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to adduce additional grounds in support its contentions before and during the course of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on :-3-: ITA. No: 36/Chny/2022 29.11.2016, admitting a to…

Shri Babulal Miyaram Gadri, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the…

Shri Babulal Miyaram Gadri, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 53/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the…

Shri Babulal Miyaram Gadri, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 52/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the…

Shri Babulal Miyaram Gadri, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 51/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 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." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…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. T…

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

…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…