CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust

195 ITR 825High Court1992#2699 most cited

What is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust authority for?

If the audit report, required for claiming exemption under section 11, is not filed along with the return of income, the return becomes defective, and the Assessing Officer must provide an opportunity to the assessee to submit the audit report and rectify the defect before completing the assessment.

43

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

Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust · 195 ITR 825 · section 11 exemption · audit report filing · defective return of income · opportunity to rectify · section 12A compliance · charitable trust assessment · AO's duty · section 139(1)

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 12a(b)recognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 11 exemptionsection 139(4a)section 80j(6a)section 10(22)section 12a(1)(b)approved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(v)section 10(20)section 12a(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust

The West Bengal National University of Juridicial Science, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2643/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 263

…ubsequent decision in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust decision in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust decision in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust (1992) 195 ITR 825 (Cal) for the proposition that if the audit report was not filed (Cal) for the proposition that if the audit report was not filed (Cal) for the proposition that if the audit report was not filed along with the return of income, the return became defective and the AO was required along with the return of income, the return became defective and the…

DDIT, Chennai vs. The Madras Seva Sadn, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and C

ITA 974/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ervice by the accountant are reasons beyond the control of the appellant for not filing the form 10 on time. I am fortified for the above view by the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts in the case of (i) CIT vs. R.B.B Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust (1992) 195 ITR 825 (Cal) (ii) CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) and also by Hon’ble ITAT in JCIT vs. Sewa Education Trust (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 292 (Agra). According to these decisions it was held that where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay had occurred in filing the audit report form 10 alongwith the return of income, the ex…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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 and 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…