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

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…icaps Ltd.: 323 ITR 554 (MP) xviii. CIT vs. American Data Solutions (P.) Ltd: 223 Taxman 143 (HC) (Kar) xix. CIT vs. Godha Chemicals (P.) Ltd.: 353 ITR 679 (Raj.) (Mag) xx. CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Services: 201 ITR 325 (Guj) xxi. CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam: 208 ITR 481 (Mad) ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 83 of 134 xxii. CIT v. Shivanand Enterprises: 209 ITR 63 (Bom) xxiii. Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT: 219 ITR 721 (Guj) Therefore, he submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80IB/IC of the Act on the ground of non-fil…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XI vs. Indian National Congress/All India Congress Committee

ITA/145/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…ngs, the requirement of law should be taken to have been complied with. Reliance is placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979)…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA/180/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…ngs, the requirement of law should be taken to have been complied with. Reliance is placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979)…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA - 180 / 2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016
Section 139Section 13A

…ngs, the requirement of law should be taken to have been complied with. Reliance is placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979)…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1366/2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…e 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. 2008:DHC:3170-DB 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Central I vs. Contimeters Electricals P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1366 / 2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…e 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. 2008:DHC:3170-DB 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…