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 367,154 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.

Kumaon Exports Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 39/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekkumaon Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 14 (2), F-26, G.N. 6, Khasara No.41/5/1 & 28/5/2, Delhi. Sadatpur Karawal Nagar, Delhi – 110 094. (Pan : Aaack3655L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Order : 05.12.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-3, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 13.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 23.10.2018 For Assessment Year 2018-19 & Filed Form 10Ccb To Claim The Deduction Under Section 80Ic Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Only On 05.11.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Kumaon Exports Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 14 (2), F-26, G.N. 6, Khasara No.41/5/1 and 28/5/2, Delhi. Sadatpur Karawal Nagar, Delhi – 110 094. (PAN : AAACK3655L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anil Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date of Order : 05.12.2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-3, Chennai (herein…

SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR &

Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane. Floor-3, Plot-4, K.K. Chambers, Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Vs. Nest to Siddharth College, Mumbai-400001. PAN: AACCS 3437 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR & Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH,…

Bansal Corelam Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshbansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, C-167, Mp Enclave, Maurya Ward-32(3), Enclave, Pitampura, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcb7341M

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)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…

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…ry requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. The following decisions support the claim of the assessee: i. CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. 71 Taxmann.com 35(SC) 4 I.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal ii. Brinda Ramakrishna vs. ITO 193 ITD 840 (Bang.) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT, iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, (199…

Bhagawanji Harish, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

…s of law have to be decided in favor of the appellant. 7. They are accordingly decided. The appeal is allowed. " 8. Further, we observe that these Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 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 under Section 80-IB of the Act. 9. Accordingly, looking into…

Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…the report of the accountant alongwith the return of income being procedural in nature strict compliance is not needed, reliance is placed on following judicial precedents amongst others: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) In this case, issue was regarding claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As per proviso to clause (iia) of section 32(1) as it stood prior to amendment by Finance Act 2005 w.e.f.1.4.2006, an Accountant certificate, in Form 3AA, certifying particulars of claim was required to be filed alongwith the return of income. Addit…

M/S. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

…bmitted that the assessee has duly complied with the requirements of Section 80IA. Hence, the claim made by the assessee should be allowed. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents :  CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC)  CIT v. Hemsons Industries [2001] 251 ITR 693 (AP)  CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [2006] 285 ITR 147. :20: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & 17. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the decision in PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. reported in (2022) 446 ITR 1 (SC), submitted that although in the said decisio…

Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.132/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. PAN : AAACR8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.202…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. Wellman Coke India Limited

ITAT/139/2024HC Calcutta13 Sept 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 50

…ial question of law raised for consideration before this Court is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Maharashtra Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Private Limited, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456. Thus, following the said decision, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. The connection application stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE…

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

…ry requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. The following decisions support the claim of the assessee: i. CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. 71 Taxmann.com 35(SC) ii. Brinda Ramakrishna vs. ITO 193 ITD 840 (Bang.) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT, Ita No.29/Bang/2021 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) in respect…

Sanjeev Mehta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 353/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

…4/Mum/2022 dated 20.09.2022). iii) M/s 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1) (ITA No. 29/Bang/2021 dated 07.03.2022) iv) Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. Pr. CIT & Ors. (2024) 460 ITR 615 (Mad) v) CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) 6. On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue submitted that it is a mandatory provision to file the Form 67 along with the return of income failing which assessee cannot claim any benefit. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that assessee has not filed the relevant Form 67 along with return of…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT 15, Shivaji Marg Circle-7(2) New Delhi-110015 Vs. Delhi PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15, Shivaji Marg Delhi Vs. New Delhi-110015 PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assesse…

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Kishan Gopal Rungta Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 609/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 12.01.2020 Ignoring That Audit Report In Form No. 10Ccb Was Filed On 22.04.2019. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

…led before the completion of assessment, the requirement of the section as to the filing of the report should be taken as complied with. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB even though it has not filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB along with the return but has filed the same before the completion of assessment. CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (2013) 353 ITR 679 (Raj.) (HC) The expression ‘along with return of income’ as occurring in sub- section (4) of section…

Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2095/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2095/Del/2024, A.Y. 2019-20 Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 349, KatraNaya, Circle-19(1), ChandniChowk, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACR0582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Manisha Lahoti, CA Respondent by Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM: The appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year (In short, the ‘AY’) 2019-20 is directed against the orde…

Anand Transformers P.Ltd, Ayodhya vs. DCIT, Circle, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 116/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2022-23 Anand Transformers (P) Ltd. V. Dcit 9, Industrial Estate Circle Gaddopur Faizabad Ayodhya Tan/Pan:Aagca1128E (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.08/Lkw/2024 [In Ita No.116/Lkw/2024] Assessment Year: 2022-23 Anand Transformers (P) Ltd. V. Dcit 9, Industrial Estate Circle Gaddopur Faizabad Ayodhya Tan/Pan:Aagca1128E (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

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

…. CIT(A) has wrongly decided the appeal ex-parte, even without providing to the appellant any opportunity of being heard; (5) In any case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had settled the issue in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456 and other attendant facts and circumstances of the case (to which attention of the Id. Assessing Officer had duly been invited by the appellant); (6) disallowance of provision for bonus amounting to Rs.1,71,901/- was not valid at all, considering the fact that such payments had been made before filing of "return of income"; (7) such fact had been…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 359/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

…intimation, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that filing of the prescribed Report in Form 10CCB before the due date of filing is only directory, placing reliance on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) b. CIT Vs. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P) Ltd (2017) 81 taxmann.com 189 (All-HC) c. Marudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Spinning Mills Vs. DCIT – ITA No.11/Chny/2023, dt. 06.04.2023 d. Satish Cold Storage Vs. DCIT (2022) 97 ITR 601 (Lucknow-Trib) Therefore, the claim for deduction us.80IB(11A) of the Act cannot be denied merely on…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 358/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited (Resultant Entity Post-Merger of Visionary Rcm Infotech (India), Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1516/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1516/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Corrohealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, [Resultant Entity Post-Merger Of Corporate Circle-1(1), Visionary Rcm Infotech (India)], Chennai. Dlf, It Park – Sez, 1B, 3Rd Floor, 1/124, Shivaji Garden, Mount Poonamalee Road, Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu So, Kanchipuram District-600 089. [Pan: Aaicc 4941 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT

Section 80J

…t order is passed, the requirement of law is satisfied and that filing of Audit Report along with RoI is not mandatory but is directory. 6. We also note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. GM Knitting Industries (P) Ltd., reported in [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) has also upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd. (supra). 7. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Jayant Patel held that the requirement of filing Audit Report along with return for claiming deduction u/s.80JJ(6A) of Income Tax Act, was directory and not mandatory; and p…