CIT v. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust

198 ITR 511High Court1992#2531 most cited

What is CIT v. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust authority for?

Filing an audit report, such as Form 10B under Section 12A(1)(b), is a directory procedural requirement for charitable trusts, not mandatory. If the report is not filed with the return, the Assessing Officer must provide an opportunity to rectify the defect before completing the assessment.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust · 198 ITR 511 · section 12A(1)(b) · audit report filing · Form 10B · directory provision · mandatory vs directory · opportunity to rectify · defective return · charitable trust exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 139Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 154Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 104section 80ac(ii)section 80p(2)(i)section 10basection 12a(1)(b)section 139(4a)section 80a(5)section 10bsection 288section 80p(1)section 80acsection 139(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust

Nihal Chand Jain Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 80Section 80I

…gal obligation. Therefore, the assessee subsequently filed the audit report in satisfaction of the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, 289 ITR 425 (Raj.). The ld. CIT (A) was not convinced with the contention of the assessee and also distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee on the ground that for the assessment year under consideration e-filing of audit report is mandatory and, therefore, non-compliance of the necessary condition is not a technical or procedural aspect but di…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…2010 dated 07-04-2017). In the case of CIT Shahzedanand Charitable Trust (228 ITR 292), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the audit report can be filed even before the appellate authority. In the case of CIT Vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust (198 ITR 511), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court considered an identical issue. The assessee before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court filed its return of income on 16.12.1983. However it obtained audit report on 20-02-1985 and the assessment was completed on 05-03-1985. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the audit report filed before completion of assessme…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 610/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income- Shri Ramesh Kshetrapal, Vs. tax, Kutchery Road, Circle-2, Ajmer. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABEPK 2831 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Hemang G…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 DCIT, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC0034F Assessee by : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CA Revenue by : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 28.02.2011 of ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have bee…

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,…

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

…(Cal) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Sankalp Welfare Society (2008) 303 ITR 64 (P & H). The audit report can be furnished before completing the assessment as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT cs. Dr. L.M. Singhvi (2007) 207 CTR (Raj) 452 : (2007) 289 ITR 425 (Raj.). It may be out of place to mention that furnishing the audit report and the certificate for claiming the exemption under s. 80HHC in form 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…