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 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.

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-12, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1671/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 40

…on that basis made a disallowance on pro-rata basis at Rs.1,76,50,483/-. 20. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Berger Paints India Limited reported in 254 ITR 503 to contend that advertisement expenses which are normally to be treated as revenue expenses since the memory of purchasing market is short and the advertisement is needed from year to year. It was also submitted that the life span of regular Ad-films is about a year and since expenses on production of such films are required to be incurred throug…

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

…rs India P. Ltd.: 178 Taxman 143 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Web Commerce (India) (P.) Ltd.: 178 Taxman 310 (Del) – SLP of revenue dismissed in SLP No. SLP (C) No. 20057 of 2009 v. CIT v. Panama Chemical Works: 245 ITR 684 (MP) vi. CIT V. Berger Paints (India) Limited: 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) vii. CIT V. Punjab Financial Corporation: 254 ITR 6 (P&H) (FB) viii. CIT v. G. Krishna Nair: 259 ITR 727 (Ker) ix. CIT V. Shiva Rice & Dal Mills: 273 ITR 265 (P&H) x. CIT V. Gupta Fabs: 274 ITR 620 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.: 284 ITR 353 (Ker) xii. CIT v. Panama Chemical Works: 292 ITR 147 (MP) xiii. CIT V. Print Systems &…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4784/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…on a regular basis the positioning of the products to maintain the competitive advantage against all other competing products available in the market. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 and held that brand expenses did facilitate the profitable operations of the assessee’s business. 61. At the time of hearing ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in the case assessee’s sister concern has held that the expenses on advertisement and sales promotion are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). 62. We have consi…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4783/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…on a regular basis the positioning of the products to maintain the competitive advantage against all other competing products available in the market. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 and held that brand expenses did facilitate the profitable operations of the assessee’s business. 61. At the time of hearing ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in the case assessee’s sister concern has held that the expenses on advertisement and sales promotion are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). 62. We have consi…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…on a regular basis the positioning of the products to maintain the competitive advantage against all other competing products available in the market. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 and held that brand expenses did facilitate the profitable operations of the assessee’s business. 61. At the time of hearing ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in the case assessee’s sister concern has held that the expenses on advertisement and sales promotion are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). 62. We have consi…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4779/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…on a regular basis the positioning of the products to maintain the competitive advantage against all other competing products available in the market. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 and held that brand expenses did facilitate the profitable operations of the assessee’s business. 61. At the time of hearing ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in the case assessee’s sister concern has held that the expenses on advertisement and sales promotion are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). 62. We have consi…

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5293/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Daikin Air Conditioning Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan: Aabcd 0971 F & Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 10(1), Vs. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2016. Date Of Order : 12/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. DR

…nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363; - Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs. ACIT 272 ITR 17 (AT)(Hyd-ITAT) - Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Re. 21 ITR 353 (All) - National Industrial Corporation Ltd. 124 Taman 413 (Delhi) - CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) - Campa Beverages (P) Ltd. V. IAC 34 ITD 241 (Delhi Tribunal) 20. The AO concluded that expenditure was basically for launch of a new business product as well as benefit of enduring nature was there. Accordingly, relying o the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468, he denied the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daikin Air- Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2922/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Daikin Air Conditioning Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan: Aabcd 0971 F & Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 10(1), Vs. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2016. Date Of Order : 12/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. DR

…nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363; - Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs. ACIT 272 ITR 17 (AT)(Hyd-ITAT) - Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Re. 21 ITR 353 (All) - National Industrial Corporation Ltd. 124 Taman 413 (Delhi) - CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) - Campa Beverages (P) Ltd. V. IAC 34 ITD 241 (Delhi Tribunal) 20. The AO concluded that expenditure was basically for launch of a new business product as well as benefit of enduring nature was there. Accordingly, relying o the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468, he denied the a…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…each and the AO was duty bound to ask it before denying claim as observed in the following cases – CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 109 CTR (Guj) 272 : (1193) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Cal)269 : (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) In the instant case, the AO has not asked any information before denying the exemption for which the assessee was legally entitled. On the other hand, he has rejected the second return which closed with the necessary documents for claiming the exemption”. Further, in the case of Emerson Network Power India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 122 TTJ/…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Encorp E Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…e business and the expenditure incurred was not of durable nature. (iv) Therefore, such expenses on advertisement are to be allowed as business expenditure and are not a deferred revenue expenditure. We rely in the case of CIT VS Berger Paints (I) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Calcutta) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “It is now settled law that if according to the revenue laws the assessee is entitled to treat a sum as revenue expenditure, then that legal right of the purchasing market is short and advertisement is needed from year to year and cannot be made once for all in any single particular year. The tri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Encorp E Service Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…e business and the expenditure incurred was not of durable nature. (iv) Therefore, such expenses on advertisement are to be allowed as business expenditure and are not a deferred revenue expenditure. We rely in the case of CIT VS Berger Paints (I) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Calcutta) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “It is now settled law that if according to the revenue laws the assessee is entitled to treat a sum as revenue expenditure, then that legal right of the purchasing market is short and advertisement is needed from year to year and cannot be made once for all in any single particular year. The tri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4344/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 4344/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Vs M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch8735M Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singvi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 24.05.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 4Section 5A

…ly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are allowable as revenue expenditure.” 5. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Modi Olivetti Ltd. 84 TTJ 1038 (Del) 7 DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 " DCIT Vs Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263 " CIT Vs Salora International Ltd. 308 ITR 199 " CIT Vs Aluminium Industries Ltd. 234/214 ITR 541 (Ker) " Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) " CIT Vs Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. 2011 335 ITR 29 (Del) 6. It was further submitted that there is a distinction between setting up of the busine…

Ge Capital Transportation Financial Sevices Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2190/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2190/Del/2006 (Assessment Year-2001-02)

…particulars manner or the accounting entries does not change the real character of transaction and are not determinative and decisive for tax purposes. The claim of the assessee should be decided as per provision of law (See case of Burger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cl.) and Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. 82 ITR SC.” ITA No. 2069/Del/06 9. After perusal of the records and the submissions of the both the Counsels, it is noticed that the claim of the assessee for the said receipts should be treated as revenue receipts is proper as re-possessed vehicles/ assets are treated as stock-in-trade throughout the…

DCIT, Circle-12(1) vs. G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2069/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2190/Del/2006 (Assessment Year-2001-02)

…particulars manner or the accounting entries does not change the real character of transaction and are not determinative and decisive for tax purposes. The claim of the assessee should be decided as per provision of law (See case of Burger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cl.) and Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. 82 ITR SC.” ITA No. 2069/Del/06 9. After perusal of the records and the submissions of the both the Counsels, it is noticed that the claim of the assessee for the said receipts should be treated as revenue receipts is proper as re-possessed vehicles/ assets are treated as stock-in-trade throughout the…

CIT vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA/1712/2010HC Delhi09 Nov 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…ticulars manner or the accounting entries does not change the real character of transaction and are not determinative and decisive for tax purpose. The clam of the assessee should be decided as per provision of law ( See case of Bur Paints India Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cl.) and Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. 82 ITR SC.” 7. The CIT (A) thereafter applied the provisions of Section 36 (1) (vii) and 36 (2) of the Act on the aforesaid facts. The case was fully covered by these provisions. Relevant portion of section 36 (2) of the Act provides as under:- “in making any deduction for a bad debt or part…

CIT vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA - 1712 / 2010HC Delhi09 Nov 2010
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…ticulars manner or the accounting entries does not change the real character of transaction and are not determinative and decisive for tax purpose. The clam of the assessee should be decided as per provision of law ( See case of Bur Paints India Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cl.) and Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. 82 ITR SC.” 7. The CIT (A) thereafter applied the provisions of Section 36 (1) (vii) and 36 (2) of the Act on the aforesaid facts. The case was fully covered by these provisions. Relevant portion of section 36 (2) of the Act provides as under:- “in making any deduction for a bad debt or part…

Tax-II vs. (P) Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1295/2008HC Delhi14 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahani & Mr Prakash Chand YadavFor Respondent: Mr B. B. Bhagat, Mr Amit Bhagat and Mr
Section 10ASection 80

…elating to submission of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 as also the decision of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G Krishnan Nair, 259 ITR 727. This objection is not very material.” 3. The Tribunal, by virtue of its order dated 10.06.2004, in the first round, also held :- “…… It is not the claim of the revenue that conditions of sec.10A were not satisfied in this case.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mantec Consultant (P) Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1295 / 2008HC Delhi14 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahani & Mr Prakash Chand YadavFor Respondent: Mr B. B. Bhagat, Mr Amit Bhagat and Mr
Section 10ASection 80

…elating to submission of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 as also the decision of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G Krishnan Nair, 259 ITR 727. This objection is not very material.” 3. The Tribunal, by virtue of its order dated 10.06.2004, in the first round, also held :- “…… It is not the claim of the revenue that conditions of sec.10A were not satisfied in this case.…