How many judgments cite CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.?

118 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 44AB, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 80IA(7).

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

254 ITR 503High Court2002#900 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 366,005 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 44AB Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 80IA(7)Section 80IB Section 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 80hhc(3)section 80ib section 28(iv)section 115ja corporate guarantee right to receive section 80hhc deduction u/s 80ia section 80hh section 234d

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

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…atment given by the assessee in its own books of Page 25 ITA Nos. 3456 & 4099/Mum/2004 Α.Υ. 2000-01 M/s United Phosphorous Ltd.) accounts. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in case of Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503) (Calcutta)." Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10.3 It is seen that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years. In particular, relevant part of the order of co- ordinate bench for 1999-00 in ITA No. 4695/Mum/2005 with regard to the issue is reproduced as below: “61. In respect of regi…

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

…l (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.)  CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 FIR 63 (Born.)  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.) 4. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, we note that the return was filed by the assessee on 05.11.2022. However, Form 10B was filed on 02.04.2024 and CPC has not Page 4 of 4 allowed the claim of exemption under section 11 and 12…

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…lement Corporation Ltd. 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…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…is taken in courts in following decisions: UCO Bank v CIT (237 ITR 889) (SC); Kedamath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v CIT (82 ITR 363) (SC) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (116 ITR 1) (SC); CIT v Tata Chemicals Ltd. (256 ITR 395) (Bom); CIT v Berger Paints (India) Ltd (254 ITR 503) (Cal); CIT v Bhor Industries Ltd. (264 ITR 180) (Bom); CIT v Fenner (India) Ltd. (292 ITR 605); CIT v Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (292 ITR 655)(Mad); and CIT v Darius Pandole (330 ITR 485) (Bom). From the ratio laid down by the courts in the aforesaid decisions it is very clear that entries in the books of account would not be a decisive fa…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gondwan A Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

…(1988) Supp. SCC 73. The third judgment cited by him is in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 196 ITR 188. The fourth judgment cited by him is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 503. The fifth and the last judgment cited by Mr. Khaitan is in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Harichand Srigopal, reported in 260 Excise Law Times 3. In the case of CIT, Punjab Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. the question which arose for decision was, whether the benefit of carrying forward the losses under section…

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…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…

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…as revenue expenditure, then that legal right is not self-estopped by the treatment given to it in the books of account. He brought to our notice to the judgment rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court as in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Limited, 254 ITR 503. 6. We, after hearing the rival submission and perusal of material available on record find that assessee has filed revised computation of income before the AO while framing the assessment order. However, the claim of the assessee was not considered by AO. Similarly, while passing the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has also stated that the assess…

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…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] 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. Similar favorable view has been taken by Tribunal in other decisions as refe…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Oppo Mobiles India (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3789/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…profit earning process and is being incurred on account of commercial expediency. It is of revenue nature. In support, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (supra), decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 and decision of Delhi Tribunal in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) and many more including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Modi Revlon Private Limited (ITA No. 825/2011) and in CIT vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. 195 Taxman 256 (Del) were cited. Page 10 of 14 ITA No.- 3789/Del/2019 M/s Oppo Mobiles India (P…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…re 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.…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…nith 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 9 Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 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…

M/S. Vijay Flexible Containers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 632/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. DCIT-1(3)(1) M/s. Vijay Flexible Containers Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan 2nd Floor, Rohit Chamber M.K. Road Janmabhoomi Marg, Fort Mumbai Mumbai-400 001. 400 020. PAN : AAECV5295K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Sukharia Department by Ms. Naina Krishnakumar Date of Hearing 28.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.07.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 7.2.2023 pas…

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

…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. 11 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of…

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Jpr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Smt. Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80J

…was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met” ( page no 52-54 of paper book) 7. CIT v/s Berger Paints ltd 254 ITR 503 (Kolkata) “That even in the case of the return itself, the documents and papers which should accompany it, do not cause its utter and complete failure from the very inception, even if those are not annexed with the return. A chance is always given to the assessee to put the matter right before the assessment. In our opinion, we should not interpr…

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…t related to the closing stock of finished goods. 4.3 Assessee further contended that the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemical Ltd. reported in 261 ITR 275 and Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 503 has held that CENVAT is not a matter of adjustment to closing stock for the purpose of Section- 145A and hence same need not be added to the closing stock. Assessee also stated that in the decision in Hawkins Cookers Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 14 DTR 206 (Mum), the Mumbai ITAT held that for purposes of Section-145A, where an assessee follows the procedu…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-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 145ASection 251Section 44A

…and the net effect is Nil. Thus, the recasted Profit & Loss a/c as per provisions of Sec. 145A did not result in any modification in net profit. The AR of the appellant also relied on the judicial pronouncements -vs.- Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal), S. Kumars Ltd. -vs.- IGT I.T.A. no.2547/M/02, CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) and Hawkins Cookers Ltd. -vs.- ITO (2008-TIOL-480- ITAT-Mum). The AR of the appellant further submitted that similar addition made by the AO has been deleted by my predecessor in AY 2001-02 to AY 2005-06. 6.3 I have considered the A.O.’…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A