What is CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. authority for?

An assessee should not suffer due to the department's mistake. If a donation to an approved society is genuine, retrospective withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's right to deduction. Withdrawal of approval can only be prospective.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. (232 ITR 785), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35(1)(ii), Section 35CCA, Section 260A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. (232 ITR 785)

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

ITA 427/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?" The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…, [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT U. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cas…

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2285/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…, [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT U. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cas…

NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NADIA vs. THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA 1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathancathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3Rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Aadcc 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.03.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051484765(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Had Disallowed The Assessee'S Donation Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made To M/S Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (Hhbrf) Which Have The Approval U/S.35(1)(Ii) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Disallowance Made Was To An Extent Of Rs.12,25,000/-. It Was The Submission That On Appeal, Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Nor The Reply To The Remand Report Confirmed

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…, [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cas…

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?" The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Furtherm…

J G ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.,O,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1145/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 40

…[2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[l 998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Put. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cas…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

…, [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cas…

SURENDRA KUMAR KAPUR. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1354/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1354/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surendra Kumar Kapur ………. Appellant (Pan: Afxpk4223K) Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. I.T.A. No. 1354/Kol/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Surendra Kumar Kapur 2. Though Registry Has Reported That This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 62 Days However, Considering The Date Of Receipt Of The Impugned Order, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing This Appeal. We, Therefore, Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…ua., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal) B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal) K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23] Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123 CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785 Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644 held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The department has power of withdrawal but in such cases…

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 312/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?" The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 311/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?" The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 310/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?" The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

…ety in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer ?" (p. 645) The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the

ITA/35/2021HC Calcutta12 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar,Adv. Mr. R. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.4.2018 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 378/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1.12.2021 To Decide The Following Question Of Law: A) Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Erred In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(1) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? B) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Company Had Debited Rs.2,50,00,000/- On Account Of Scientific Research

Section 14ASection 260ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35C

…d society in the approved programme before the 5 date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?” The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/42/2020HC Calcutta12 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35C

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?” The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the 6 purpose for which it was donated. Fur…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS(P)LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the

ITAT/120/2021HC Calcutta12 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 904/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Questions Of Law For Consideration. A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law By Ignoring The Facts That The Central Government Vide Notification No.79/2016 Dated 6.9.2016 Withdrew The Recognition Given To Grant Approval Under Section 35[1][Ii] Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of M/S. Herbicare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation W.E.F. 1.4.2007 ? B) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Was Justified In Deleting The

Section 256(2)Section 260ASection 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35C

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?” The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA vs. TAPATI SAHANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITAT/42/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35C

…roved society in the approved programme before the date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?” The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the 6 purpose for which it was donated. Fur…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. M/S MODERN GEARS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the

ITAT/35/2021HC Calcutta03 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar,Adv. Mr. R. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.4.2018 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 378/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1.12.2021 To Decide The Following Question Of Law: A) Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Erred In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(1) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? B) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Company Had Debited Rs.2,50,00,000/- On Account Of Scientific Research

Section 14ASection 260ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35C

…d society in the approved programme before the 5 date specified in the section and on this basis only restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer?” The High Court followed the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785, and came to the conclusion that once it was found that the assessees had fulfilled all the conditions which had been laid down under section 35CCA of the Act for claiming deduction of the amount donated by it, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to see that the amount was utilised for the purpose for which it was donated. Further…

MRC TRANSOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 245CSection 35(1)(ii)

…unt of fraud committed by the donee organization. 9 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors., 258 ITR 529 following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co., 232 ITR 785 held that notwithstanding the fact that the approval granted earlier to the Research Organization was withdrawn subsequent to the payment of donation, the deduction cannot be withdrawn in the hands of the donors. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Resear…

SSL EXPORTS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 35

…the claim of the assessee is not affected by the fact that the donee has approached the Settlement Commission. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co. [1998] 232 ITR 785 (Calcutta) for the proposition that, even if an inference drawn by the AO is correct, yet the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed on the ground that, as on the date of issuance of notice, the donee was non-existent or that they were not involved in desired activities. He also relied on the following case laws: i) Nirbhayram Vishram vs. DCI…

DEVIYANI DILIP PATEL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2316/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2316/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Deviyani Dilip Patel, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Flat No.12 – Alsuha Flats, V. Business Ward Xv (3), Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 031. Pan : Aalpp 6624 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. T.C.A. Sangeetha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)

…35 of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the recipient-institution utilised the funds for which the approval was granted. The Ld.counsel placed her reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. M/s Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 785 and also judgment of Gauhati High Court in 4 I.T.A. No.2316/Mds/15 Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 644. According to the Ld. counsel, the Gauhati High Court in Chotatingrai (supra) followed the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. (supra). The Ld.counsel further submitted that the judgment of Ga…

CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.

What is CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NADIA vs. THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA 1, KOLKATA

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

J G ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.,O,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

SURENDRA KUMAR KAPUR. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, NAGPUR

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS(P)LTD.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA vs. TAPATI SAHANA

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. M/S MODERN GEARS PVT LTD

MRC TRANSOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

SSL EXPORTS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

DEVIYANI DILIP PATEL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI