CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory

294 ITR 631High Court2007#2172 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory authority for?

The requirement of filing an audit report along with the return of income for claiming deductions under sections like 80-IA(7) or 80J(6A) is directory, not mandatory. The deduction can be allowed if the audit report is filed any time before the assessment is framed or processed under section 143(1).

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory · 294 ITR 631 · section 80IA(7) · section 80J(6A) · audit report filing · directory vs mandatory · filing before assessment · deduction claims · Form 10B · assessment under section 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ABSection 80IASection 250Section 80IA(7)Section 80IBSection 80J(6A)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 10b(8)section 80iesection 119(1)section 143(1)(a)(v)section 288section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 80ibsection 139(9)section 80jdeduction u/s 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory

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

…luding the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom), apart from the Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). The Calcutta High Court in the case in CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, is not able to produce any other judgment contrary to the above said views consistently taken. In the light of the a…

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)

…her Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that…

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being. CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay): Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and tha…

PRISTINE MEGA LOGISTICS PARK PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…s of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631 (Punj. & Har.). 8. In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but direct…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagah…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagah…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it is clear that the assessee is covered by these case laws and I.T.A. Nos. 18-20/GTY/2025 Nagah…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…ng, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not man…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…ng, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not man…

COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…ng, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not man…

ARIF INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

…her Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the Page 5 of 7 provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but direct…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

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

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) • CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) • CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in “CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 com 25 Mad)” was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in “CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd., 376 ITR 456”. Though the case arose out of non-filing of audit report in Form 10CCB to claim deduction under Se…

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR
Section 143(1)Section 80I

…same is made before framing of assessment, deduction should not be denied. In support of its argument, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements : a) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Mahalakshmi Rice Factory reported in 294 ITR 631 b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 35 (SC) c) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sutures India (P) Ltd (2021) 125 Taxmann.com 226 d) ITAT Kolkata Benches in the case of DCIT vs. Tide Water Oil Company (I) Ltd in ITA No.2051/KOL/2010 dated 20.01.2012. e) Hon'ble Karnataka High Co…

GURUDWARA SHRI GURU SINGH SABHA,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), DELHI

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

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

…s also the view of the Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), and Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT-(1996) 219 ITR 721 and Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 10. In the instant case, the Form 10B was filed on 30.03.2021 and the return of income was processed on 30.11.2021. We find that the assessee had obtained audit report in Form 10B before filing return of income, however filed the same belatedly but before completion of Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh…

BHAGWAN PRECISION,ROHTAK vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that…

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 M/s. Yuva Chintana Foundation, The Income Tax No – 69, Karishma Officer Farms, (Exemptions), Gubbalala, Ward – 2, Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AAATY2771J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Anoop Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21-04-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09-07-2025 ORDER PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is di…

SWAMI SATYAPRAKASHNAND SHIV MANDIR TRUST,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. AO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 4 Gujarat High Court in zenith Processing Mills v. CIT(1996) 219 ITR 721 and Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2 ) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently take…

DADHA & CO GOLDEN JUBILEE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…(Del.) CIT -Vs-A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 25 Mad) was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd., 376 ITR 456. Though the case arose out of non-filing of audit report in Form 10CCB to claim deduction under…

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement…

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory (294 ITR 631) — Cited in 53 Judgments | BharatTax