CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd.

303 ITR 256High Court2008#2600 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee can file a revised computation of income during ongoing assessment proceedings, even after the time limit for filing a revised return under section 139(5) has expired. This revised computation can be submitted without filing a revised return.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Zuari Cement · section 139 · revised computation · assessment proceedings · revised return · section 139(5)

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 430

Sections most often in play

Section 43BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 40A(7)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(2)section 119(2)(b)revision under section 263credit for tdsmalabar industrialicdsinterest under section 234aerroneous and prejudicialsection 36(1)(iii)section 115jsection 115jbsection 43b

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contrary to the return of income before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolutio…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2169/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contrary to the return of income before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolutio…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contrary to the return of income before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolutio…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contrary to the return of income before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolutio…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contrary to the return of income before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolutio…

Shri Pankaj P. Khara, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-7, Mumbai

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

ITA 801/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pankaj P Khara, Vs. Pr. Cit-27 64D,Askini, Op Chs Room No. 401, 4Th Ltd,Plotno.20, Secotr- Floor, Tower No. 6, 11, Behind Kanchan Vashi Railway Station Junga, Koparkhairne, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400709 Vashi – 400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akhpk0207E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Hiral Sejpal.Ca. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Nikhil Chaudhary.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)-27, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Hiral Sejpal.CA. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Nikhil Chaudhary.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Pankaj P Khara, Vs. Pr. CIT-27 64D,Askini, Op CHS Room No. 401, 4th Ltd,PlotNo.20, Secotr- Floor, Tower No. 6, 11, Behind Kanchan Vashi Railway Station Junga, Koparkhairne, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400709 Vashi – 400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AKHPK0207E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Hiral Sejpal.CA. DR Respondent by : Mr.Nikhil Chaudhary.DR Date of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER P…

Gmr Infrastructure Limited vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/1036/2017HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.1036 OF 2017 BETWEEN: GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED NO.25/1, SKIP HOUSE MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. G. KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.,) AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…v. Ahmedabad Keiser-e-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.: 128 ITR 486 (Guj.) CIT v Archana R. Dhanwatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom.) Sneh Lata Jain vs. CIT: 140 Taxman 156 (J&K) PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd.:[2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Del.) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd: 303 ITR 256 (Del) CIT v. Ramco International : 332 ITR 306 (P&H) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT Raghavan Nair vs. ACIT: 304 CTR 96 (Ker) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Third Member). SNC-Lavalin Acres Inc.: 110 TTJ 13 (Del ITAT) ACIT v. Pushpons International in ITA No. 814/Del/1998 (Del ITAT) Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon v. DCIT: 61 SOT 93 (URO)/ IT…

Siddhivinayak Co-Op. Ind. Premises Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2019[F.Y. 2013-14 (1 Q - 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 4575/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2013-14) Siddhivinayak Co-Operative Industrial Premises Society Limited, Bldg. No.8, Jogani Indstrial Complex, Plot No.1, Survey No.2, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 Pan: Aaajs 2579J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh S. KhiradFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J Sethi
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ive of assessee to support his contention that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act should be entertained on the bases of revised computation of income placed reliance on various decisions including: i. CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium co. Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del.); ii. CIT vs. Ramco International, 332 ITR 306 (P&H); iii. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). 4. Per contra, Shri Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that in t…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 468/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Indore Education & (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaati3186K

Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…me Tax Officer (2011) 11 ITR(Trib) 17 146 Taxman 335 (Guj) (ii) Raj rani Gulati CIT Central Tilak (2012) 346 ITR 543(All) (iii) S.R.Koshti V CIT 146 Taxman 335(Guj) (iv) K.P.Varghese V ITO 131 ITR 597 (v) UCO Bank V CIT 237 ITR 889 (v) CIT Bharat Aluminum Ltd 303 ITR 256 (Del) (vi) CIT V Dhampur Sugar Ltd 90 ITR 236 (All) (vii) Xerox India Ltd V DCIT New Delhi (ITA 158/2010) Further after relying on the validity of Circular No 14 dated 11.04.1955 as examined by Honourable Apex Court in the case of CIT V Makendm Mills reported in 234 ITR 56 in which the Honourable Court has examined the applicability of the above…

Income Tax Officer- 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Su-Sampada, Indore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

Section 139(5)Section 80I

…) dated 11.4.1955 is binding in nature but the Assessing Officer could not appreciate the same. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue. Our view is fortified by the following case-laws: 1. CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del); 2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 172 Taxman 258 (Del); 3. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd., 90 ITR 236 (All.); 4. Chicago Pneumatics India Ltd. vs. DCIt (15 SOT 252) (Mum); 5. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (URO) (ITA No.1611/K/2003); 6. Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT, 108 TTJ 439 (Cochin); and 7. Xerox India Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.1580/Del/…

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271Section 40a

…n consistently held by the High Court of Delhi that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the income tax. (i) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (SLP dismissed on 21.11.2011) (ii) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., 222 CTR 526 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del.) (v) CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd., 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs. Info Vergix Technologies Ltd., 323 ITR 52 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Showa ltd., 329 ITR 449 (Del.) (viii) CIT vs. Industrial Finances Corpn. of India L…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…eduction or relief is not allowed assessee, the purpose and intention of the law if defeated. 4.17 This view finds support from the following decisions of the Honble High courts and also the Income TGlt'C Appellate Tribunal: 1. CIT vs. Bh.arat: Aluminium Ltd, 303 ITR 256 (Del): "thus the case of the assessee had submitted two revised computations of income during the assessment proceedings. It had in us return of income claimed a part of deferred revenue expenditure us revenue expenditure while the reimagining was carried to the balance sheet. In the revised computation, the assessee claimed total deferred relJe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…reted in the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Courts not to exceed the power of the Tribunal nor the first appellate authority viz., the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JE Parolics 306 ITR 42 Delhi and Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Aluminum 163 Taxmann 430. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have examined the claim of the assessee and this action in interfering with the claim was not justified. 33. The next common ground raised by the assessee in the Cross- objection for asst. year 2012-13 to 2014-15 is with regard to the disallowance of expens…

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2009-10 Indecomm Global Services India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, (formerly known as IGS Imaging Circle 3(1)(1) Services India Pvt. Ltd.,), [formerly Circle 11(4)], 11-12/1, 4th Floor, Maruthi Infotech Bangalore. Center, Block A, Amarjyoti Layout, Off. Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 067. PAN: AABCI 2902H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Rashmi R., Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…(MUM). iii. Ram Kishan Dass Vs. ITO 149 Taxman 55 DEL-(Mag.) iv. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT(A) (Assessment)-VOL-287-ITR- 211 (Bangalore). v. Pawan Kumar Vs. Assessing Officer –VOL.106-TTJ-494 (JD.) vi. CIT(A) Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 256 (Del.) vii. CIT(A) Vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. 13 DTR 145 (Bom) viii. Ms. Mayawati Vs. CIT(A) 18 DTR 46 (TRB, 2009) ix. Rajiv Agnihotri Vs. CIT(A) 23 DTR 476 (Del) Trib. x. Kulbir Singh Vs. Asst. CIT(A) 24 DTR 421 (Agra) Trib. xi. CIT(A) Vs. Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. 30 DTR 231 (P & H). xii. CIT(A) Vs. Deepak Mittal 37 DTR…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1762/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

…Reliance were made on the following judgements by the assessee:- DCIT vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 (a) Dy.CIT vs. Godrej Tea Ltd. 4 ITR (Trib) 649 (b) ITO vs. M/s. Elka Cosmetic Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) (c) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co.Ltd. 303 ITR 256 HC (Delhi) (d) Silicon Graphics Systems (I) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 106 TTJ 1153 ITAT (Delhi). Further that nowhere in the Income-tax Act, it is provided that the expenditure should be claimed only when income has been earned as per section 37(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim any expenditure which is incurred for the purpose of business or profe…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…ground that assessee was not making any fresh claim and duly furnished documents and- Form 10CCB during assessment proceedings. There was no requirement for filing any revised return. The judgment of Goetze (India) (2006) 284 ITR 323 SC was not-applicable. v. 303 ITR 256 Delhi. High Court CIT V/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. As held in this case that, if any revised claim of expenses incurred is made' during assessment proceedings, it is not a new claim but enhancing quantum of expenditure. Assessment based revised claim was valid. vi. Duty of Assessing Officer (i) 56 ITR 198 S.C. Navnitlal C. Zaven V/s. K K Sent,…