CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.

317 ITR 207High Court2009#1013 most cited

What is CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. authority for?

For claiming relief under Chapter VI-A deductions like Section 80IB or 80IA, the audit report in Form 10CCB is not mandatory to be filed with the return of income, but can be submitted before the assessment is completed.

107

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems · 317 ITR 207 · Form 10CCB · audit report filing · Section 80IA · Section 80IB · before assessment completion · Section 90 · DTAA · foreign tax credit · Azadi Bachao Andolan

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 154Section 250Section 44ABSection 80IASection 80IA(7)

Issues it is cited on

section 295section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 90aazadi bachao andolansection 91section 90(2)foreign tax creditsection 80acsection 139(5)section 80asection 288

Judgments citing CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 752/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 751/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 750/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1(3), Hyderabad

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…80IA(7) would be met. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: iii) CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd, [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi). iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems(P.) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 307 (Kar). v) CIT v. Medicaps Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 554 (M.P.). vi) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 35 taxmann.com (Uttarakhand). vii) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (AII) 25.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2015] 376 I…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…10CCB along with return of income but filed same before assessment was complete, assessee could not be made to suffer for it - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of assessee]” 74. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63, Uttrakhand High Court in the case of Sanjaykumar Bansal 219 Taxman 41 & Karnataka High Court in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. 125 Taxmann.com 226 has held that assessee company could file Form 10CCB even during assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings. Further,…

Acc Ltd ( Formelry Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addll CIT, (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…10CCB along with return of income but filed same before assessment was complete, assessee could not be made to suffer for it - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of assessee]” 74. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63, Uttrakhand High Court in the case of Sanjaykumar Bansal 219 Taxman 41 & Karnataka High Court in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. 125 Taxmann.com 226 has held that assessee company could file Form 10CCB even during assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings. Further,…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…owing decisions: i) CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd (376 ITR 456) (SC) (ii) CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63) (Bombay HC) (iii) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 219 Taxman 41 (Uttarakhand) (iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) 68. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR has relied upon finding given by lower authorities and argued that deduction u/s.80IA cannot be allowed as such claim was not made in the Return of Income. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprise V. UOI 415 ITR 139. 69. In the rejoinder…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…owing decisions: i) CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd (376 ITR 456) (SC) (ii) CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63) (Bombay HC) (iii) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 219 Taxman 41 (Uttarakhand) (iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) 68. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR has relied upon finding given by lower authorities and argued that deduction u/s.80IA cannot be allowed as such claim was not made in the Return of Income. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprise V. UOI 415 ITR 139. 69. In the rejoinder…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…owing decisions: i) CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd (376 ITR 456) (SC) (ii) CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63) (Bombay HC) (iii) CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [2013] 219 Taxman 41 (Uttarakhand) (iv) CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) 68. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR has relied upon finding given by lower authorities and argued that deduction u/s.80IA cannot be allowed as such claim was not made in the Return of Income. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprise V. UOI 415 ITR 139. 69. In the rejoinder…

Anju Agast Srivats, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, (NFAC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1158/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Ms. Anju Agast Srivats Vs The Income Tax Officer No. 303. Sobha Orchid Nfac, Delhi Jakkur, Bengaluru 560064 Pan – Afsps6930E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. Ca Revenue By: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 23.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Wherein He Had Denied The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc).

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 90

…r vs Surya Merchants Ltd [2016] 72 com 16 (Allahabad) CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 com 379 (Karnataka) CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…td [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) • CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Karnataka) • CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) • CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…td [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) • CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Karnataka) • CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) • CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies(P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 80I

…llate proceedings, the same ought to be considered as fulfillment of the condition. The ld Counsel then buttress assessee’s case with the aid of various judicial precedent as well, and submitted before the Bench that in the case of CIT V/s. Medicop Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP), it was held that filing of audit report is procedural and directory in nature and the same can be filed at the appellate stage. 9. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court while interpretating the deductions, in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Parle Exports (P)Ltd. (1989) 1 SCC 345, held as follows: ITA 230/SRT/2022/AY.2019-20 Hi-Tec…

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2021-22 Subramanian Sreeram, Vs. The Assistant Director of B 506, Brigade Metropolis, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, CPC, Mahadevapura S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN: AKTPS 9574N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navneet N. Kini, CA Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against th…

Shiva Neeti Developers, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 699/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers v. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ABQFS8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 19 10 2022 Date of pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.8.2017 of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That…

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

…r vs Surya Merchants Ltd [2016] 72 com 16 (Allahabad) CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 com 379 (Karnataka) CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more Page 11 of 13 beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they…

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…r vs Surya Merchants Ltd [2016] 72 com 16 (Allahabad) CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 com 379 (Karnataka) CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial…