How many judgments cite CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.?

221 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (376 ITR 456), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 80JJAA, Section 10B.

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.

376 ITR 456Supreme Court of India2015#403 most cited

What is CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

221

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries · 376 ITR 456 · G.M. Knitting · Section 80-IB · Section 115BAA · Section 80JJAA · Section 10B · Form 10CCB · filing forms for deduction · timing of claim · procedural vs substantive benefits · assessment procedure · Supreme Court

Also reported as

71 Taxmann.com 35

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 80JJAA Section 10B Section 119(2)(b)Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 10b(8)section 80ia(7)section 80jjaa section 10ba section 80jja section 80j section 288 section 115baa section 10b section 80a(5)additional depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (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

…s not affect the substantive claim of exemption. 4. The JCIT(A) ignored that Form-10B was filed in time and Form-10BB was filed later to rectify the procedural error. 5. The JCIT(A) failed to consider case laws: CIT vs G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC), CIT v. Monarch Educational Society (2020) 113 taxmann.com 311 (Mad). 6. The JCIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of legitimate expenditure of Rs.1,17,58,569 and taxed the gross receipts of Rs.1,56,07,598/- 7. The JCIT(A) erred in applying maximum marginal rate instead of the rate applicable to AOP registered under Karnataka Societies Reg…

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2557/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)

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

…nn.com 514 (Kolkata–Trib.), he submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal, following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (2016) 376 ITR 456 (SC) has held that non-filing of audit report in Form No.10DA along with return of income does not disentitle the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on th…

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2556/PUN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)

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

RAJGOR AGRO LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2105/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Apr 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Addl./Joint Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance On The Ground That The Assessee Opted For New Tax Regime Under Section 115Baa Of The Act & Filed Form No. 10-Ic On 28.12.2024. Since Both The Return Of Income & Form No. 10-Ic Have Been Filed Belatedly, The Addl./Joint Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 72

…cedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. SC ruling in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing is directory. Even if the claim is made during the assessment proceedings, such a claim is to be allowed. 8.3 After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and the specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, th…

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)

…circumstances cannot be denied deduction. In this regard we gainfully refer to the decisions of Hon’ble MP High Court in case of CIT v/s Panamma Chemical Works (2007) 292 ITR 147 (MP) and that of Hon’ble SC in case of CIT v/s GM Knitting Ind P Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456(SC). Even ITAT Indore in case of DCIT-4(1) v/s Oddiville Foods and Frozen in ITA No:- 427/Ind/2025 dated 20.03.2026 has taken similar view after following Hon’ble MP High Court Order (Supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court Order (Supra). 4.4 In view of the above, we dismiss the Revenue’s Appeal. 5 Order Page 11 of 12 AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE…

ELECTRONFAB ENGINEERING PVT LTD,SEEPZ SEZ MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4828/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nITA No.4828/Mum/2025\n(Assessment year: 2024-25)\n\n\nElectronfab Engineering Pvt\nLtd.\nUnit No.33, SDF-II, SEEPZ-SEZ,\nAndheri-East, Mumbai-400096\nPAN:AAACE0300J\nAPPELLANT\nvs\nCPC/ITO\nRESPONDENT\n\nAssessee by: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha Dalal\nRespondent by: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)\n\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\n\n:\n:\n13/02/2026\n16/03/2026\n\nPer: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):\nORDER\…

SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

…tion, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. SC ruling in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456 emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing is directory. Even if the claim is made during the assessment proceedings, such a claim is to be allowed. 8.3. After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a p…

NTT MANAGED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR

Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

…the IT Act should not be denied. 10. While passing the above ruling the Ahmedabad Tribunal has inter alia made reference to the following rulings: Hon'ble Apex court ruling in the cases of CIT v. GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.[2016] 71taxmann.com 35/[2015) 376 ITR 456 wherein it was held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form10CCB along with the 9 ITA.No.1165/Hyd./2025 return of income, if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB. The Hon'b…

G.C.T.ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3673/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 119Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…ble in the file of the CPC while processing the same. 21. We draw the above conclusion by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Maharashtra v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd, reported in 376 ITR 456, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows "21 (a). It would be suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing additional depreciation as claimed by the respondent-assessee herein: - "Additional depreciation is denied to the assessee on the ground…

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT

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

…he notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd. (2016/12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of th…

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

…ng of Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory for claiming deduction 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 da…

DCIT,CC-7(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No.6858/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 2Nd Floor, 55, Corporate 7(2) Avenue, Saki Vihar Road, Room No. 637, Aaykar Andheri East, Mumbai – Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400072, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact3858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69CSection 801CSection 80I

…explanation. In this context, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme P a g e | 16 ITA No. 6857 & 6858/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19 Time Technoplast Ltd., Mumbai Court, in the case of CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported as 376 ITR 456 (SC)., wherein it is held that; “Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2005-06 - Even if form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but same was filed during assessment proceedings before final order of assessment was made, assessee was entitled for additional depreciation [In fa…

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

…and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. In support of the claim, the assessee has relied upon several decisions including the following decision: i. . CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. 71 Taxmann.com 35(SC) ii) Brinda Ramakrishna vs. IPO 193 ITD 840 (Bang) iii) 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT. Ita No. 29. Hang/2001 iv) Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) in respect of…

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

O P JINDAL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEM. WARD 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6375/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

…by CPC, the Form 10B was available in ITBA portal. There is no delay, rather it was filed subsequent to the filing of return of income in both the years. I find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs GM Knitting Industries Ltd. (2016) 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) / 376 ITR 456 (SC) held that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income had not been filed but the same was filed before final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position and applying the same principal that when statutory audit…

O P JINDAL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEM. WARD 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6374/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3077/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80J

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-DDA, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACA1315R Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Revenue by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, J.M. 1. The application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing of appeal and appeal are against the order dated 30.12.2024 by th…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(5)Section 143(1)

…asis on mere technicalities to reject the claim, despite the substantive compliance with the requirements of the Act. He relied upon the following decisions: • Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd [2015] 376 ITR 456 • Hon'ble ITAT Bench E of Mumbai in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Sons (P.) Ltd. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 364 (Mumbai Trib.)[26-06-2025] • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Astrotech Steels (P.) Ltd. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 285 (Madras) [03-06-2025] • Hon'ble Delhi High cour…

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 35/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 295(1)Section 90

…the Accountant Member was a member) on similar issue of FTC allowed the appeal. The following cases have been referred in the said order as well as in the order of Rahul Anand (supra) relied upon by the assessee: “i. CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. 71 Taxmann.com 35(SC) ii. Brinda Ramakrishna us. ITO 193 ITD 840 (Bang) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT. ITA No. 29/ Bang/2001 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P. No.5834 of 2022” 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates to foreign tax credit and is as u…

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…

Showing 1–20 of 221 · Page 1 of 12

...