What is CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory authority for?

For claiming deduction under section 80IA, the audit report can be filed during the course of or before the completion of assessment proceedings.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory (294 ITR 631), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 44AB, Section 80IA, Section 250, Section 80IA(7).

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Rice Factory (294 ITR 631)

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

…the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 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. M/s.Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: 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…

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

…T -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.)  CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.)  CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 FIR 63 (Born.)  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.) 4. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, we note that the return was filed by the assessee on 05.11.2022. However, Form 10B was filed on 02.04.2024 and CPC has…

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…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…

Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from Gujarat High Court in zenith Processing Mills v. CIT- (1996) 219 ITR 721 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 7. The Calcutta 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 taken…

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

…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…

Copral Energy Private Limited, Krishnagiri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Copral Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No.12, Sipcot, Phase-Ii, Circle-1(1), Krishnagiri District-635 109. Salem. [Pan: Aaacc 8486 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics- (1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 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…

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics- (1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 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…

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…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 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 directory and that…

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…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] 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 c…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

…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 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 directory and that…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…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 9 Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 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 a…

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 71/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19. cuke Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, DCIT Central Circle-4, Vs. R-21, Raj Aangan, NRI Colony, Jaipur. Haddi Ghati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AATPA 4920 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan…

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

…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/[2Q031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. :- 6 -: 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other j…