What is CIT v. Ramco International authority for?

Assessing Officers and appellate authorities must consider and grant correct deductions for fresh legal claims or revised computations made during assessment or appellate proceedings, subject to due verification.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ramco International?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ramco International (332 ITR 306), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ramco International come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 139(5), Section 143(3), Section 80A(5), Section 10B(8), Section 132.

CIT v. Ramco International (332 ITR 306)

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

…e revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. The appellant has also made reference to decisions in the-case of (i) CIT vs. Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 1TR 222(iii) Pradeep Kumar Haflakka vs. ACIT.12(3), Murnbai (iv) ACIT. Vs. M/s.NHK Spring India Ltd. to substantiate his point. The appellant in his submissions has also highlighted the decisions of the judicial authorities which have held that requirement of Audit Report u/s.80IB…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following cases: • Rajesh RasikLal Shah vs. DCIT 35 DTR 388 (Mum.) • Ascharajlal Ram Parkash vs. CIT [1973] 090 ITR 0477 (All) • Double Dot Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT 38 DTR 220 (Mum.) • CIT Vs. Ramco International 332 ITR 306 (P&H) 11.7 After hearing both the parties, we find that an identical issue has been considered by this Bench in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No. 420/JP/2017 dated 23.02.2018 wherein we have held as under:- “5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset we note that…

Shri Dron Sureshkumar Rao, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1378/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Sonia Kumar, SR.DR

Section 43(5)

…d if some claims are found to be eligible, the same ought to be allowed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions wherein the ratio of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 is examined: • Romeo International 221 CTR 491 (P&H) • CIT vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 353 (P&H) 4 • Earesson Net Work Power India Pvt. Ltd. 19 DTR 441 (Mum.) • Chicago Pneumatic India Limited 15 SOT 252 (Mum) • MoserBaer95ITR148(AT)(Del.) Without prejudice to the above, it is with respect submitted that there may be restrictions with regard to additional claim, not made in the r…

DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata vs. M/S. East India Business Centre (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 154

…on being pointed out by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for which assessee has not filed revised return, although, as per law, the assessee is required to file the revised return ..... " 10. Further, in the case CIT vs Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (2008) HC (P&H) wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court, distinguished the judgement of Goetze allowed the claim of the Assessee which was made in course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised return. 11. The CIT(A) as a first appellate authority has the power to entertain a new claim even in the absence of a revised return of…

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer

Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘ई’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ीआर.सी.शमा",लेखासद", एवं"ीअमरजीतिसंह,"ाियकसद",केसम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly known as Commissioner of Income Vs. TCE Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCT0772E (…

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG OSD (7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 6786/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer

Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘ई’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ीआर.सी.शमा",लेखासद", एवं"ीअमरजीतिसंह,"ाियकसद",केसम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly known as Commissioner of Income Vs. TCE Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCT0772E (…

D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolata, Kolkata vs. M/S Ikf Technologies Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2273/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8I

…ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In the identical facts and circumstances, several courts have decided this issue in favor of assessee. The Hon’ble Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Ramco International 332 ITR 306 has observed as under : ITA No.2273/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT. Cir-2, Kol. vs. M/s IKF Technologies Ltd. Page 5 “Deduction under s. 80-IB—Allowability—Claim not made in return—Assessee having duly furnished the documents and submitted Form No. 10CCB during assessment proceedings, claim for deduction under s. 80-IB by way of an application was a…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. ADIT (International Taxation) - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…in the course of assessment proceedings for which assessee has not filed revised return, although, as per law, the assessee is required to file the revised return ..... " Further, reliance was also placed on the decision in the case CIT vs Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (2008) HC (P&H) wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court, distinguished the judgement of Goetze allowed the claim of the Assessee which was made in course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised return. 29. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it was submitted that the action of the ld. AO of not allowing the claim of t…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. DDIT, International Taxation - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…in the course of assessment proceedings for which assessee has not filed revised return, although, as per law, the assessee is required to file the revised return ..... " Further, reliance was also placed on the decision in the case CIT vs Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (2008) HC (P&H) wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court, distinguished the judgement of Goetze allowed the claim of the Assessee which was made in course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised return. 29. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it was submitted that the action of the ld. AO of not allowing the claim of t…

CIT v. Ramco International

What is CIT v. Ramco International authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramco International