CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

254 ITR 503High Court2002#910 most cited

What is CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. authority for?

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. · Section 80-IB deduction · Section 80-IA deduction · Form 10CCB · audit report filing · delayed audit report · non-filing audit report · condonation of delay · deduction claim validity

Also reported as

126 Taxmann 435

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ABSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80IA(7)Section 80IBSection 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 80hhc(3)section 80ibsection 28(iv)section 115jacorporate guaranteeright to receivesection 80hhcdeduction u/s 80iasection 80hhsection 234d

Judgments citing CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

…T [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har): EN TAX DEPARTMENice Facion 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which d…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Reliance Retail Limited ACIT Circle- 3rd Floor, Court House, 8(1)(1), Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Vs. Room No. 670, 6th Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- floor, Aayakar 400 002 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AABCR1718E (Applicant) (Respondent) & ACIT Circle-8(1)(1), Reliance Retail Room No. 670, 6th Limited floor, Aayakar Vs. 3rd Floor, Court House, Bhavan, Maharshi Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Karve Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 020 400 002 (Applicant) (Respond…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagahat Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. deduction u/s 80IE of the Act cannot be denied to him on the ground of delayed filing of Form 10CCB. Eve…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagahat Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. deduction u/s 80IE of the Act cannot be denied to him on the ground of delayed filing of Form 10CCB. Eve…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagahat Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. deduction u/s 80IE of the Act cannot be denied to him on the ground of delayed filing of Form 10CCB. Eve…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are…

ARIF INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

…nith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…el (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) • CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) • CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in “CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 com 25 Mad)” was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in “CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd., 376 ITR 456”. Though the case arose out of non-filing of audit report in Form 10CCB to claim deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, the ratio laid down in the decision squarely ap…

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

…) 254 ITR 271 (P&H)] - Where an advertisement was given in a souvenir which merely mentioned ‘with best compliments from’ without advertising the products, such expenditure was allowed as admissible deduction CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (No.2) [(2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal)] ~ Wherg advertisement expenses were capitalized in accounts as the benefit of such outlay Spills over to future years it was held that although Accounting standard would perm) such a treatment but since it is an obligation incurred during the year, it could be treated as relating to year in which it is incurred and allowed as a deduction o…

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of\nthe High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji\nVallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales\nBureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration\nof the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without\nsuch registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale\nin those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted\nthat similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996…

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales Bureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration of the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without such registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale in those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted that similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996- 97…

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales Bureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration of the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without such registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale in those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted that similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996- 97…

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales Bureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration of the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without such registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale in those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted that similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996- 97…

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales Bureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration of the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without such registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale in those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted that similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996- 97…

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363; Chowringhee Sales Bureau 87 ITR 542; Berger Paints 254 ITR 503. It is submitted that the registration of the product was compulsory to make sales in the respective countries. Without such registration, the appellant company could not have launched its product for sale in those countries. The expenditure was, therefore, of revenue nature. It is submitted that similar expenditure was allowed upto A.Y. 1996- 97…

DADHA & CO GOLDEN JUBILEE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…yant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 25 Mad) was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd., 376 ITR 456. Though the case arose out of non-filing of audit report in Form 10CCB to claim deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, the ratio laid down in the decision square…

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…enith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. Page 10 of 16 ITA Nos 20 and 21 of 2025 Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Ass…

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…enith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. Page 10 of 16 ITA Nos 20 and 21 of 2025 Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Ass…

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6