CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation

254 ITR 6High Court2002#10041 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 139Section 148Section 35ADSection 44ABSection 73ASection 80-IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 35adsection 32asection 35asection 288section 73section 80jset off of lossessection 10btax benefitsection 119(2)(b)section 80a

Judgments citing CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 545/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held that filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(5) along with return is not mandatory. 9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required audit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of the assessment and hence a liberal construction of exemption provi…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 544/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held that filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(5) along with return is not mandatory. 9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required audit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of the assessment and hence a liberal construction of exemption provi…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 541/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held that filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(5) along with return is not mandatory. 9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required audit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of the assessment and hence a liberal construction of exemption provi…

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""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 : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…ilable before the assessment is made : (vide K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) and followed in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad)); (ii) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6, interpreting section 32AB(5) itself, which is the subject matter in the present appeal, held that the submission of the audit report is directory, but not mandatory. According to the Full Bench, the assessees claim for deduction under section 32AB does not depend on the submission of the audit report along with the return, but on deposit of the am…

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""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 : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…ilable before the assessment is made : (vide K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) and followed in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad)); (ii) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6, interpreting section 32AB(5) itself, which is the subject matter in the present appeal, held that the submission of the audit report is directory, but not mandatory. According to the Full Bench, the assessees claim for deduction under section 32AB does not depend on the submission of the audit report along with the return, but on deposit of the am…

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

…nt of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80-IA(7) would be met." CIT v. Punjab Financial Corpn. [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj.& Har.) (FB) In this case it was held that filing of audit report under section 32AB(1)/(5) along with return is not mandatory. A part of the statute has to be construed with reference to the context. Whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothe…

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

…nt of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80-IA(7) would be met." CIT v. Punjab Financial Corpn. [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj.& Har.) (FB) In this case it was held that filing of audit report under section 32AB(1)/(5) along with return is not mandatory. A part of the statute has to be construed with reference to the context. Whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothe…

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…the return within the stipulated time. Such violation of the provision was therefore, beyond the control of the assessee. The provisions of Section 80AB, as already discussed, are directory and not mandatory. 14.1 In “CIT Vs Punjab Financial Corporation”, 254 ITR 6 (P&H) (copy at ACL PB –II, pages 64 to 73, the Hon'ble ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 23 jurisdictional High Court has observed, inter-alia, as follows : "Order Before proceeding further, we may notice some of the principles of interpretation of the statutes. These are: (1) The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends u…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI, AMARJIT SINGH JM ACIT 25(1) Vs. M/s. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 PAN/GIR No. AALFA3071G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri V. Vidyadhar Assessee by Shri Jayant R Bhatt Date of Hearing 07/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2018 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)- 35, Mumbai dated 27/05/2014 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Ac…

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

…ce (India) (P.) Ltd.: 178 Taxman 310 (Del) – SLP of revenue dismissed in SLP No. SLP (C) No. 20057 of 2009 v. CIT v. Panama Chemical Works: 245 ITR 684 (MP) vi. CIT V. Berger Paints (India) Limited: 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) vii. CIT V. Punjab Financial Corporation: 254 ITR 6 (P&H) (FB) viii. CIT v. G. Krishna Nair: 259 ITR 727 (Ker) ix. CIT V. Shiva Rice & Dal Mills: 273 ITR 265 (P&H) x. CIT V. Gupta Fabs: 274 ITR 620 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.: 284 ITR 353 (Ker) xii. CIT v. Panama Chemical Works: 292 ITR 147 (MP) xiii. CIT V. Print Systems & Products: 285 ITR 260 (Mad.) xiv. Amit vegetable Oil Ltd. v.…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

ITA/924/2009HC Delhi07 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with
Section 10Section 158BSection 260A

…audit report/certificates is not filed along with returns but is provided subsequently. At this stage reference may be made to the decision of the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner Income Tax v. Punjab Financial Corporation: (2002) 254 ITR 6 (P&H). In that case the Court considered the question “Whether section 32AB(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or directory and delayed filing of 2015:DHC:8430-DB ITA 705/2008, 924/2009 & W.P.(C) 3797/2011 Page 69 of 71 audit report would disentitle an assessee from claiming the benefit of deduction under section 3…

CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation (254 ITR 6) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax