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.

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

…TR 147 (MP) xiii. CIT V. Print Systems & Products: 285 ITR 260 (Mad.) xiv. Amit vegetable Oil Ltd. v. CIT : 158 Taxman 36 (All) xv. CIT v. Shivanand Electronics: 75 Taxman 93 (Bom) xvi. CIT v. Dr. L.M. Singhvi: 157 Taxman 312 (Raj) xvii. CIT V. Medicaps 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…

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

…f 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) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it should be noted that there is a distinction between accounts needing to be ma…

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

…f 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) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it should be noted that there is a distinction between accounts needing to be ma…

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

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

…f 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) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it should be noted that there is a distinction between accounts needing to be ma…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

ITTA/336/2010HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Narayana Builders vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazstay Petn. No.77/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.474/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) & M/S.Narayan Builders, No.101/104, 1St Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020 … Appellant Pan: Aaffn 3285 R Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sham R.Chakravarthi, Ca. Respondent By: Shri P.Dhivahar, Jcit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2015. Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2015. O R D E R Per Smt.P.Madhavi Devi, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sham R.Chakravarthi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Dhivahar, JCIT (DR)
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80I

…d by the assessee. In support of his contention that the audit report can be filed even at the appellate stage, he placed reliance upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT & another vs. Ace Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 207. The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having gone through the material on record as well as the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we find that the Hon’ble High Court has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Kolkatta High Court to com…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S American Data Solutions India Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/587/2007HC Karnataka18 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 260Section 288Section 80

…claim relief u/s.10A of the Act as the assessee had filed Form No.56F before the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings? This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another –vs- Ace Multitaxes Systems Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Karn) held that, sub-section (7) of Section 80-IA of the Act does not cast any obligation on the assessee that the return must be accompanied by the audit report. It appears to be proper reasoning as to why in all - 5 - cases it cannot be accompanied by audit report. For meeting the practical difficulties of the assessee, it is not…