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.

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 249)

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…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…

Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…he assessment is completed if :-5-: ITA. No: 1397/Chny/2024 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N.)-(1994) 208 ITR 481 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 a…

B R Hospital and Resarch Institute, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-Exemption 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 1336/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10BSection 11Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 37

…esearch Institute vs. ITO CIT v. Sakal Relief Fund, 2017 (4) TMI 772 (Bom) (Pages 21-24 of case law compilation) CIT v. Software Technologies Parks of India, 2019 (8) TMI 168(Del) (Pages 19-20 of case law compilation) CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd., 317 ITR 249 (Del.) CIT Vs. Integrated Databases India 178 Taxman 432 (Del.) Audit Report in Form 10CCB was submitted before CIT(A) Submissions and case law regarding these grounds (Pages 67-68 of PB) ACIT v. Hi-Line Pens Pvt. Ltd., [2013 (9) TMI 440-ITAT Delhi] deduction to the assessee u/s 801B (Pages 4-12 of case law compilation) CIT v. Xavier Kelavani…

Oan Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.584/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Oan Industries Private The Income Tax Limited, V Officer, 134, Malhotra Nagar, Near S Ward-4(2), Jaipur. Vidyadhar Nagar Stadium, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302039. Pan: Aacco9587F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Khandelwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena- Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(Appeals)-2, Pune U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For A.Y.2023-24 Dated Oan Industries Private Limited [A]

Section 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 44ASection 5Section 7Section 80

…. ITO vs. Marathon India Ltd., (ITAT Jaipur) (ITA No.287/JP/2018 vide order dated 27.06.2018). 5. ITO vs. Novelty Garments (Rajasthan High Court) (256 ITR 0688) 6. CIT vs. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] (Mad.) 7. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 249 8. CIT vs. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad). 4 OAN Industries Private Limited [A] Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.Addl.CIT(A). 4. Basic Facts : We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The assessee filed…

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…it has been held that assessee has filed the details, however the assessing officer has not examined all the evidences. He relied following judgments to support this contention; i. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Delhi); ii. Genesis Colors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 191 (Delhi-Trib.) 4.1 It is submitted that section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry. Relying the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. reported in 202 Taxman 130 it was submitted that where t…

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…25 (Guj.); IX. CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 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. [2009] 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi); XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (All.); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.). 6.3. In light of the above facts and judicial pronouncements, we find that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to technical issues and was beyond the control of th…

Copral Energy Private Limited, Krishnagiri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Copral Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No.12, Sipcot, Phase-Ii, Circle-1(1), Krishnagiri District-635 109. Salem. [Pan: Aaacc 8486 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…ore, 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N.)-(1994) 208 ITR 481 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 a…

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…ore, 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ARUNACHALAM (A.N.)-(1994) 208 ITR 481 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 a…

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTd. v. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (KAR) 3. CIT v. Shahzedanand Charity Trust [1997] 228 ITR 292/[1998] (Punjab and Haryana) 4. Murali Export House v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 257 (Calcutta) 5. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/178 Taxman 422 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Medicaps Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 554 .(Madhya Pradesh) 2.16. The assessee submitted that his case is much stronger as there is no delay either in filing the return of income nor in filing the audit report in form 10CCB of the Act. The denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(7) of the Act amounting to Rs. 50,04,395/-, be…

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…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…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

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

…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 5 I.T.A.No.652/Del/2023 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 dir…

A R Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 175/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraa. R. Industries Vs. Dcit Khasra No. 52/7, Plot No.6 Cpc Village, Pehaladpur, Bengaluru New Delhi -110 042 Pan No. Aaofa 2476 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024

Section 143(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A. R. Industries Vs. DCIT Khasra No. 52/7, Plot No.6 CPC Village, Pehaladpur, Bengaluru New Delhi -110 042 PAN No. AAOFA 2476 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Amit Goel, C.A. and Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 22.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)…