How many judgments cite CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.?

107 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. (317 ITR 207), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 90, Section 154, Section 250, Section 44AB.

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 90 Section 154 Section 250 Section 44AB Section 80IA Section 80IA(7)

Issues it is cited on

section 295 section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 90a azadi bachao andolan section 91 section 90(2)foreign tax credit section 80ac section 139(5)section 80a section 288

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

M/S Swiss Park Vanijya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 162/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…axmann.com 25; 14-12-2011), held that the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB could have been filed before the assessment was completed. For the same, Hon’ble Court noted the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be fou…

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 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…

M/S Roopa Steam Calendering Works, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.284/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Roopa Steam Calendering The Dy. Commissioner Of Works, Income Tax, 647/1, Btra Ginning Compound, Vs. Centralized Processing Center, Palladam Road, Bengaluru. Tirupur – 641 605 [Pan: Aadfr-6895-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

…it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CITv. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be fo…

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R

Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax M/s. Fiza Developers & Intertrade Pvt. Central Circle-2(3) Ltd. Bangalore No.25/1, Residency Road Vs. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACF5868N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing Counsel Respondent by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Date of Hearing : 17.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by revenue is dire…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Manilal Dayalji & Company, Dhamtari

ITA 62/RPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) Ita. No. 62/Rpr/2019 C.O. No. 7/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit –(2)(1), Manilal Dayalji & Co., Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Gola Bidi Works, Amapara, Dhamtari Pan No.Aagfm4587N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh, DR

Section 147Section 250(4)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…ssed to DCIT Circle-2(1), Raipur wherein at point No. 2(b) it has been mentioned that the copy of audit report u/s 10CCB was filed during assessment proceedings is once again being filed. On these facts no disallowance is warranted. In the case of Medicap Ltd 323 ITR 554 the Hon'ble MP High Court has held the finding of Hon'ble ITAT that audit report is procedural and directory in nature and can be filed at the appeal stage. Similarly, Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Kewal Kiran Clothing Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 2173/Mum/2009 has held that where the assessee has filed audit report before CIT no adverse inference ca…

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

…f income is a directory requirement and would stand satisfied if the audit report is furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings.” Similar view is taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs ACE Multtaxes Systems (P) Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). We place reliance on the judicial pronouncements and hold that the assessee should be allowed the deduction u/s.80JJAA since the Form 10DA was filed during the course of the assessment. 18. The Ld.DR during the course of the hearing brought to our attention that the amount mentioned in Form 10DA for the asst. year 2012-13 does not m…

Anabond Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 418/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra (CA) a/w Shri BFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80l

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा23 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद; के सम3। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.418/Chny/2021 (िनधाDरण वषD / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. Anabond Ltd. CIT(Appeals), बनाम/ Type-II, 36 Dr. VSI Estate, National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCA-4158-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri P…

Goldstone Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3., Hyderabad

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

ITA 1094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Goldstone Technologies Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3 Pan – Aaacg 7478F (Now Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 10ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Goldstone Technologies Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Central Circle – 3 PAN – AAACG 7478F (now Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date of hearing: 07/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 23/11/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT…

Brinda Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 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. Page 7 of 9 Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they…

M/S Sutures India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result the substantial questions of law are

ITA/115/2010HC Karnataka13 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80HSection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.115 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/S. SUTURES INDIA PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. L.G. CHANDRASEKHAR NO.118, 3RD PHASE, 13TH CROSS PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BANGALORE-III, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A.…

M/S Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 481/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 80I

…hen requirement of section 80-IA(7) would be met. The following case laws are quoted in support: - • CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd 178 taxman 422 (Del) • CIT vs. Ace Multitaxes Systems P. Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 307 (Kar.) • CIT vs. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP) • CIT vs. AKS AlloyP Ltd. (2012) 205 taxman 11 (Mag.) • CIT vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal (2013) 219 Taxman 41 (UK) (iv) Regarding committing mistake in dating the certificate in form 10CCB as 30.03.2008 instead of 30.03.2007, an affidavit of the concerned CA is submitted herewith.” It was accordingly submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT was not justi…

M/S Unique Builders and Developers (Ajit), Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 249/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207(Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be fou…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Devi Granites

ITA/336/2010HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 260Section 288Section 4Section 80H

…other law for the time being in force.] 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. ACE MULTITAXES SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. reported in (2009) 317 ITR 207, wherein the very question of law, has been answered in favour of the 7 assessee and the Court therein held, that it is not necessary in all cases that a return must be accompanied by the audit report which is under Section 80-IA(7). The said proviso is a parimateria to Section 80 HHC. Under the circumstance, the secon…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Devi Granites

ITA/335/2010HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 260Section 288Section 4Section 80H

M/S. Siddhartha Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as the ld AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 253/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ward-23(3), Ltd, C/O. M/S. Virendra New Delhi Kalra & Co., 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Virendra Kalra & Co., Ward-23(3), 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun New Delhi Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…wherein, it has been held that filing of the audit report with the return of income is directory and it can be filed before the assessment. Even the first appellate stage is part of the process of making an assessment only. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 317 ITR 207 has held that even if audit report is filed before the first appellate authority it is sufficient compliance with the provision of audit for claiming these deductions. The similar view is also been taken by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in 238 ITR 257 and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 228 ITR 292. Further, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as the ld AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6886/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80I

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 4082/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito 25(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., 4Th Floor, C-101 237, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Pratyakshkar Bhavan Industrial Estate, New Link Bkc, Bandra (E) Road, Andheri(W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Abrfs2523G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Chetan Anjaria Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar Parida Date Of Hearing 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2018

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…in case of Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom). This view was also supported by the following judicial pronouncements:  (2016) 387 ITR 105 (ALL) Pr. CIT Vs Surya Merchant Ltd  (2009) 317 ITD 249 (Del) CIT Vs Centimetres Electricals P. Ltd  (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Kar) CIT Vs ACE Multitaxes Systems P Ltd  (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) CIT Vs Jayant Patel  (2001) ITR 481(Mad) CIT Vs A.N, Arunachalam 8. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we do not find any infirmity in this part of order of CIT(A) for holding that since audit report was filed before…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao At The Time Of Assessment Proceedings With A Certificate That The Above Said Forms Had Been Ito Vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 80I

…it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207(Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be fou…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…and in the following cases, it has been held that the filing of audit report is not mandatory and only directory. Accordingly it was held that the audit report can be filed during the course of assessment proceedings:- (a) CIT Vs. Ace multiaxes System P Ltd (317 ITR 207)(Kar) (b) CIT Vs. Contimeters Electrical P Ltd (317 ITR 249)(Delhi) (c) CIT Vs. Jayat Patel (248 ITR 199)(Mad) (d) CIT Vs. M/s Fortune Foundation Engineers (ITA No.73 of 2010 dated 07-04-2017). In the case of CIT Shahzedanand Charitable Trust (228 ITR 292), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the audit report can be filed even b…

Manilal Dayalji & Company, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. The CIT, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 32/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…the assessee has neither produced certificate from competent authority nor has submitted the audit report in form 10CCB. 6. Insofar as the non submission of the audit report is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Medicaps Ltd. 323 ITR 554 has upheld the findings of the Tribunal which held that the audit report is procedural and directory in nature and the same can be filed at the appellate stage. It is a fact that the audit report was made available to the ld. CIT during the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. 7. ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Kewal Kiran Clothing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA…