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.

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…de by the appellant during the assessment proceedings but mistake in calculation was rectified and enhanced claim was made. In view of the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers &Shareholders, 252 CTR 151 (Bom.) and CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del.}, the claim made by the appellant for further deduction of bad debt to the extent of Rs.28,94,145/- is allowed.” 44. Against the above order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before us. 45. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO, whereas the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order of CIT(A). 46. We have heard rival submissions and pe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4568/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Circle 31(1), New Delhi Plot No. 29, Dlf Indl. Area, Phase-I, Faridabad Pan : Aafpj2485F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…even though it was filed after the prescribed period under section 139(5). The commissioner (appeals) was justified in entertaining such claim of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.303 ITR 256 wherein the assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1999-2000 and during the assessment proceedings filed a revised computation of income reducing the income by claiming further expenses on account of additional power cost and other expenses in connection with failure of a transmission tower. The assessee later filed another revised compu…

Prakash Auto, Ulhasnagar vs. CIT 23, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4309/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 32(1)(iii)

…appeal before us against the above order dated 28.03.2013 of the CIT. The learned counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom); CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 256 (Del) and M/s. Perlos Telecommunication & Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1037/Mds/2013) for A.Y. 2008-09 of ITAT, Chennai. He refers to (i) the balance of (- Rs. 26,20,506/-) carried to the balance sheet in partners’ account (p. 44 of the P/B), (ii) the rental income of Rs. 74,68,626/- (p. 43A of the P/B), (iii) the origin…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr Piyush Gupta, Ghaziabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3879/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Acit, Circle 48(1), Vs. Piyush Gupta, New Delhi. 8, Green Avenue, Abhey Khand Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aatpg 5012 B ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Gagan Kumar Ca Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2016. Date Of Order : 13/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gagan Kumar CA
Section 115WSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 154Section 49Section 72Section 73Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 48(1), Vs. Piyush Gupta, New Delhi. 8, Green Avenue, Abhey Khand II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. PAN: AATPG 5012 B ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Gagan Kumar CA Date of hearing : 10/05/2016. Date of order : 13/05/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: This is revenue’s appeal assailing the order dated 21.05.2012, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi in appeal no. 2313/11-12, for A.Y.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 518/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.C.GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…g whereas in the present case the assessment was pending and the assessee had made the genuine claim during the course of assessment proceedings itself through a revised computation. The ld AR relied on the following cases:- - CIT Vs Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd, 303 ITR 256 (Del) [2008] - Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd Vs DCn Spl. Range-45, [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum) - Emerson Network Power India P Ltd Vs ACIT, [2009] 122TTJ 67 (ITAT Mum) 7.2 We find that the assessee has made the provisions of Rs.3,66,33,543/- for bad and doubtful debts in its Profit & Loss A/c but by mistake while submitting the return the same was take…