How many judgments cite CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.?

140 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. (317 ITR 249), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 44AB, Section 250, Section 80IA(7), Section 119(2)(b).

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.

317 ITR 249High Court2009#730 most cited

What is CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Contimeters Electricals · section 80IA(7) · audit report filing · mandatory vs directory · along with return · before assessment · section 80IC · section 80J(6A) · Form 10CCB · deduction claim procedure

Also reported as

178 Taxmann 422

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44AB Section 250 Section 80IA(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 10b(8)section 80ie section 80j section 288 deduction u/s 80ia section 80ib section 80i section 80ia section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 10b

Judgments citing CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.

C D O JAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

ITA 2570/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 250

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad) and in CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad), held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory)-* but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before…

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Α.Ν. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 Page 5 of 12 AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED ITA No. 344/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2021-22 (Mad.) held that the filing of a…

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 104/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s. Bodal Chemicals Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Plot No. 123, 124, Phase-I, GIDC, Income-tax, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Central Circle-1(1), Gujarat-382445 Ahmedabad [PAN : AAACD 5352 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Nagar, AR Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been f…

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3934/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: CA Vkas Singh & CA V.K. JainFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288(2)Section 44ASection 80Section 801Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…tion under section 80-IAC and thus, the disallowance is not warranted. Assessee relied upon several judicial precedents in this regard as under: i) CIT vs G M Knitting Industries (P) Ltd [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) ii) CIT vs Contiments Electricals (P) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) iii) Marudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Spinning Mills vs DCIT, ITA No 11/Chny/2023 dated 06.04.2023 (ITAT, Chennai) iv) DCIT vs Jupiter Metal Industries P Ltd, ITA No. 3815/Del/2010 dated 15/10/2010 (ITAT, Delhi) v) ACIT vs Green Dot Health Foods Pvt Ltd, ITA No. 8414/Del/2019 dated 09.02 2023 (ITAT, Delhi). o) It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A…

AARTI SINGAL FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU

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

ITA 89/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2021-22 Aarti Singal Foundation, Vs. Cpc, 4, Amrita Shergil Marg, Bengaluru Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aacta1263F

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aarti Singal Foundation, Vs. CPC, 4, Amrita Shergil Marg, Bengaluru Delhi – 110 003. PAN: AACTA1263F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 25.11.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A…

PRISTINE MEGA LOGISTICS PARK PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…d, then the claim of deduction cannot be denied to the assessee/appellant, even if the audit report may not have been filed along with the return of income……” Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of 7. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. as at 317 ITR 249 held as under:- “…...5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely di…

ACIT, CC-13, JHANDEWALAN vs. SBL PVT LTD, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Vs Acit Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-13 Plot No.3, Sector-12, Iie, New Delhi. Sideul, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249403. Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Shaurya Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/10525/17-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Engaged In Manufacturing Of Homoeopathy Medicines In India & Has Two Manufacturing Units Situated At Haridwar Which Are Eligible For Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act & Also Has Units At Jaipur & Sahibabad, Which Are Non-Eligible Units. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 18,85,40,940/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 31.08.2015, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire. In Response, Requisite Details & Replies Were From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions & Replies Filed By The Assessee In Support Of Its Claim, Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee Company At Inr 52,74,33,562/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Estimation Of Income At Sahibabad Plant & Further By Making Disallowance Out Of Various Expenses & By Not Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ic Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…u/s 80-IC of the Act, was filed by the assessee which was available before the AO when the assessment was completed and since it is directory requirement. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case in CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. reported in [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) by following the judgements of the hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam reported in [1994] 208 ITR 481 and in the case of CIT v. Jayant Patel reported in [2001] 248 ITR 199 held that filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time…

FIVD INDIA CONSULTING PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3877/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3877/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2023-24) Fivd India Consulting P.Ltd., 1022-1027, 10Th Floor, Emaar Digital Green, Sector-21, Golf Course Ext Road, Near Golf Ext., Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecf-3663-P बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 Assessee By : Shri Y K Sud, Chartered Accountant Department By: Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bhubaneswar (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 04.04.2025, For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Shri Y K Sud, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Short Issue In Present Appeal Is Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction U/S.80Iac Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). He Submitted That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Interior Design, Architectural Advisory Services

For Appellant: Shri Y K Sud, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

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

…subsequent to the filing of return of income, it 3 suffices the legal requirement. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on various decisions some of them are as under:- CIT vs. Gupta Fabs, 274 ITR 620 (P&H); CIT vs. Contimeters Electrical P Ltd., 317 ITR 249 (Delhi.); Sanjay Kukreja vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 652/Del/2023 for AY 2019-20 decided on 30.01.2024; Kumaon Exports P Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No. 39/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19 decided on 05.12.2024; & Desai Infra Projects (I) P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 234 TTJ (Pune) 879. 3. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the impugned o…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit…

ALICON CASTALLOY LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT,-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1377/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner Of Gat No.1426, Village S Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. Pan: Aabcp0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Pr.C1T Erred In Revising The Asst, Order Passed U/S

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1377/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner of Gat No.1426, Village s Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. PAN: AABCP0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue by Shri Aditya Shukla – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOT…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…d by mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994]208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of t…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80Section 80JSection 80L

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 357/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Volark Leasing IFSC Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Unit No. 524, Signature Building, Income Tax/Deputy 5th Floor, Block 13B, Zone-1 G, Commissioner of Income Chiloda, Gandhinagar-382355 Tax, Gandhinagar, Gujarat [PAN No.AAICV3373J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pancham Sethi, AR Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR Respondent by : Date of Hearing 08.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 O R D E R PER: A…

ARIF INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the au…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…me has not been filed along with the return of income. In arriving at such a decision, the Court referred to the decisions cited below: • CIT -Vs- Ace Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 2017 (Kar.) • CIT -Vs- Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del.) • CIT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • 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…

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…ITR 325 (G.): IX. CII v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016171 taxmann.com 35/120151376 ITR 456 (SC): X. CIT v. Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 310/318 ITR 135 (Delhi): XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [20091 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi): XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. 120151 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad. v. Dy. CIT 120191 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.): 9. Further, we are also an agreement for the Counsel for the assessee that the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein in the or…

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7