CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries

201 ITR 325High Court1993#480 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries authority for?

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

195

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries · Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries · Section 80J(6A) · Section 80-IA(7) · audit report filing · directory compliance · mandatory requirement · substantial compliance · filing before assessment · exemption claim audit report · Form 10B · Section 11 audit report

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 139(1)Section 12ASection 250Section 12Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 12a(b)section 12a(1)(b)section 139(4a)section 80ia(7)section 10b(8)section 119(2)section 80jsection 119(2)(b)section 288section 10bsection 11(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

M/S.Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee trust has not submitted its accounts in Form No.10AA before the prescribed authority in given time, the same does not justify the addition and disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No.…

Nayab International, Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1068/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 147Section 1OSection 234BSection 234CSection 271

…e non- filing of the report in the prescribed form will disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under section 10A of the Act. 8.2 However, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325 has held that the requirement of filing the report for claiming the deduction under section 80J of the Act is not mandatory. As such the requirement of section Page 4 of 9 Asstt. Year 2009-10 80J of the Act for filing the prescribed report is the directory in nature. The provision of section 80J are akin to the provision of section 10A of the Ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Ramesh Kshetrapal, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 610/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & HemangFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 801A(7)Section 80I

…ion 80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word “shall” which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as „may " and that the requirement of filing of an audit report…

The ACIT, Circle -1, Surat vs. M/S. Kiran Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 2343/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2343/Ahd/2013 With Co No.52/Ahd/2014 /Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Kiran Industries P.Ltd. Surat. Kiran Compound, Mugat Dyeing Lane Udhana, Surat. Pan : Aabck 0359 C. / (Appellant) / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80ISection 80J

…13 with CO 3 5. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee and made reference to a large number of decisions, including one of the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj). 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. No doubt sub-section (7) of section 80IA requires the assessee to submit audit report along with return for claiming deduction under section 80IB. But in various authoritative pronouncements, it has been held that it is a directory requirement and…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/s. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd., E/48, Bhubaneswar. Infocity, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bibek Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24/04/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : /04/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- II, Bhubaneswar, dated13.11.2014,…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…. Singhvi: 157 Taxman 312 (Raj) xvii. CIT V. Medicaps Ltd.: 323 ITR 554 (MP) xviii. CIT vs. American Data Solutions (P.) Ltd: 223 Taxman 143 (HC) (Kar) xix. CIT vs. Godha Chemicals (P.) Ltd.: 353 ITR 679 (Raj.) (Mag) xx. CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Services: 201 ITR 325 (Guj) xxi. CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam: 208 ITR 481 (Mad) ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 83 of 134 xxii. CIT v. Shivanand Enterprises: 209 ITR 63 (Bom) xxiii. Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT: 219 ITR 721 (Guj) Therefore, he submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying the claim of deduction under sec…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…m 10CCAC was treated as procedural in nature. The mistake was treated as a technical breach and the AO was duty bound to ask it before denying claim as observed in the following cases – CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 109 CTR (Guj) 272 : (1193) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Cal)269 : (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) In the instant case, the AO has not asked any information before denying the exemption for which the assessee was legally entitled. On the other hand, he has rejected the second return which closed with the necessary documents for claiming the exemption”…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1366/2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word „shall‟ which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as „may‟ and that the requirement of filing of an audit…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Central I vs. Contimeters Electricals P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1366 / 2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word „shall‟ which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as „may‟ and that the requirement of filing of an audit…