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#404 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 366,470 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.

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

…Act on account of non-filing of the return within the prescribed time limit u/s 139(1) of the Act would be governed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 Pvt. Ltd., reported as 376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein it has been held that filing of the return for making of a claim under Chapter VI-A of the Act is mandatory, but, compliance of timing is directory. Therefore, even if the claim is made during the period of assessment proceedings, such claim has to be allowed. 11. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, first of al…

Armstrong Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Tirupur vs. ADIT, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 602/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanth kumar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा01 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम1। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.602/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Armstrong Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Director of No.61-C Saminathapuram 2nd Street, बनाम/ Income Tax, Anupparpalayam,Tirupur-641 652. Centralized Processing Centre, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCA-5129-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ…

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 765/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 - 21 Sree Gokulam Chit and The DCIT, Finance Co. P. Ltd., vs. Central Circle 1(2), No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Chennai. Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai– 600 024. PAN: AAACS 8778C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर स…

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/s. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, ABT Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [PAN:AAHCA3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : S…

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

Virgo Aluminum Ltd., Sirmour vs. Pr. C.I.T., Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 80Section 80I

…the claim of deduction u/s 80IC by ignoring the fact that said deduction was allowed by the Id. A.O. after making enquiries or verification as required by law and also covered by the Hon'ble SC judgment in the case of CIT vs CM. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.: 376 ITR 456, so assessment order passed by Id. A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Limited Company and has been engaged in the manufacturing of aluminum rolled products, such as aluminum sheets. The assessee had e-filed its return of income on 26.10.2017, declaring tot…

Shiva Neeti Developers, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 699/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…y Delhi High Court in CIT v. Contimeters Electrical (P) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/178 Page 8 of 13 Taxman 422; by Madras High Court in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707. 42. Supreme Court in CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 dismissed appeal of Revenue and confirmed the view taken by Madras High Court holding that filing of audit report and form 10CCB along with return is not mandatory. 43. In view of above, we answer question no. 2 in ITA No. 73 of 2010 in favour of Assessee and against Revenue, holding that it is not mandatory and only dire…

Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Wardha Maryadit Bajaj Building, Krushna Nagar, Wardha, Maharashtra – 442001 Pan: Aacak6196N Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

…ari Vrund Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit income or in any manner before the conclusion of assessment proceedings, as is the case under consideration, would validate the entitlement. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) came across a situation in which the assessee claimed additional depreciation in Form 3AA but the Form was not furnished along with the return of income. Such Form was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO denied the claim on the ground that the Form 3AA was required to be statutorily filed along with the return of in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 8, Pune vs. Aswani Developers, Pune

ITA 576/PUN/2020[201213]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / It(Ss)A Nos.02 & 03/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Central Circle-2(2), Pune Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ish to clarify here that hon’ble apex court’s recent decisions in Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Limited (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), Commissioner of Customs Vs.M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Limited (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) have settled the law that provisions in a taxing statute; including deductions, ought to be strictly interpreted. We keep in mind this settled proposition and note that their lordships in Vandana Properties (supra) had come across an instance wherein all the project amenities had already been completed (in towers A to D) before the said…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1 (1), Pune vs. M/S Ags Customer Services I P Ltd, Pune

ITA 162/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.162/Pun/2022 & C.O. No.22/Pun/2022 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Dcit, Circle -1(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…. an anti avoidance measure introduced by the legislature. Hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decisions PCIT V/s Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223, Commissioner V/s Dilip Kumar & Co. 2018 (9) SCC 1(SC) FB & CIT V/s. GM Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) have settled the law that the relevant provisions in the Act ought to be put to stricter interpretation only. Faced with this situation, we reverse the CIT(A)’s findings in issue going against sec. 92CC(4) r.w.s.(9A) of the Act (supra) and direct him to re-decide C.O. No.22/PUN/2022 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/s. AGS Customer Services India P.Ltd., al…

ITO Ward - 23(3), New Delhi vs. Shree Bhawani Power Projects Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 61/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Mr.Hiren Mehta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Mr. M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

…h return is not mandatory and only directory and assessee cannot be made to suffer if it filed audit report in Form 10CCB in the course of assessment proceedings and not along with return. In the case of CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. (2015) 71 Taxmann.com 35 (SC) it was held asunder: 4.4 "Even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of the assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-1B." In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Revenue and confirmed th…

ITO Ward - 23(3), New Delhi vs. Shree Bhawani Power Projects Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 194/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Mr.Hiren Mehta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Mr. M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

M/S Roopa Steam Calendering Works, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.284/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Roopa Steam Calendering The Dy. Commissioner Of Works, Income Tax, 647/1, Btra Ginning Compound, Vs. Centralized Processing Center, Palladam Road, Bengaluru. Tirupur – 641 605 [Pan: Aadfr-6895-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

…Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jyoti Jain [2009] 17 DTR (Raj.) 286. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on this preposition relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though necessary certificate in Form No.10CCB has to be filed along with the return of income, but even if the same was filed before the final order of assessment was :- 5 -: made, assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of…

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…), wherein held that assessee company could filed audit report in the form of Form No.10CCB even at the appeal stage so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. 71 Taxmann.com 35 (SC), wherein held that even though necessary certificate in the form of 10CCB along with the return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of the assessment was made but the assessee was entitled to claim u/s 80IB of the Act. Further, coordinate bench in the case of Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd. In ITA No.888/Hyd/201…

M/S Surendra Steels Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Surendra Steels Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Charu Market 2(3), Kolkata Srcb Road Fancy Bazar Guwahati (Assam) - 781001 Pan : Aaics6451J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, A/R Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata - 20, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Dt. 10/12/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Though The Assessee Has Taken Six Grounds Of Appeal But Its Grievance Revolves Around A Single Issue, Namely, That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Amounting To Rs.3,92,08,790/- Claimed U/S 80Ic Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 801CSection 80I

…ity which is not fatal to the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In other words, this is an irregularity which is curable in nature. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G M Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. 376 ITR 456. He also relied upon the decisions of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. order dt. 14/09/2018 and decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Lancer Food Products vs. ITO dated 04/09/2017. On the strength of these decisions it was submitted before us that there is no lapse at the end of the assessee…

Srikaram Prescience P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2845/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Srikaram Prescience Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ltd. Ward-24(2), 99/1, Block C, Inderpuri, New Delhi New Delhi-110012 Pan – Aamcs9536J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 56

…1 ITA No. 2845/Del./2019 M/s. Srikaram Prescience P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Srikaram Prescience Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd. Ward-24(2), 99/1, Block C, Inderpuri, New Delhi New Delhi-110012 PAN – AAMCS9536J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2019 in a…

ACIT, Circle-31(1), New Delhi vs. Kanidi Cosmeceuticals, New Delhi

In the result all the grounds raised by the ld AO are dismissed and the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed

ITA 4192/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, /Vs. Kanidi Cosmeceuticals, Circle-31(1), 191, Carripa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaifk2611H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 80I

…ing reliance on following decision-Ravinder Aggarwal (HUF) vs CIT [ITA.0.5066/Del/2011], ACIT vs Octave Exports [ITAT Chandigarh (2015) 54 Taxman 417], ACIT vs Assam Dyeing Plants (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 46/GAU/2011], & CIT vs GM knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2016] 376 ITR 456 [SC], wherein the claim of assessee was allowed due to technical mistake, whereas in the present case the assessee was consistently A deliberately presenting wrong facts before the department by consciously presenting itself as involved in manufacturing of "Herbal Cosmetics" so as to influence the public perception being less harmful when termed…

Padma Challa, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1046/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. Kanika Agarwal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80ISection 80l

…d during the course of hearing and that the same should be considered if they are so filed, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd reported in 376 ITR 456 (S.C). 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee ought to have filed the audited accounts in Form 10CCB along with the return of income and since they have not been so filed, the claim of deduction u/s 80IC could not be entertained. She Page 3 of 4 ITA No 1046 of 2019 Pad…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. M/S Wipro Limited

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/462/2017HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 72

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.462 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-9(1), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. WIPRO LIMITED (WIPRO SPECTRA MIND SERVES LTD.,) DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE-560076 JPAN: AAE-CS-1943-B. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANAGHA NAIR,…

Hexaware Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1861/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1861/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Unit No.152, Block –A, Sector -3, Millenium Business Park, Ttc Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aabca3203F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 80J

…ee submitted that the genuine claim of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on technicality. To support his argument the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., 376 ITR 456 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. , 396 ITR 251 (Mad) (iii) Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain vs. DCIT (Exem.), 266 Taxman 399 (Mad) The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that rejection of claim despite all documents available on record constitute a mistake apparent from record. The ld. Authorized Representa…