CIT v. Sabri Enterprises (

318 ITR 123High Court2009#7847 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)

Issues it is cited on

section 36section 139section 13section 143prescribedindiacompanysection 14total incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Sabri Enterprises (

Cae Simulation Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Abdul Kadir Jawadiwala, by AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 139Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…oved in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416 (SC)/[2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 417 (SC)[25-11-2009] [3] Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 391 (Karnataka)/[2009] 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka)[15- 09-2009] and [4] Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(3) [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)/[2014] 222 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) (MAG)/[2014] 366 ITR 408 (Karnataka)/[2014] 266 CTR 246 (Karnataka)[04-02-2014] . If those decisions are applied the above sum would not have been disallowed under the…

Cae Simulation Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2402/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Abdul Kadir Jawadiwala, by AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 139Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…oved in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416 (SC)/[2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 417 (SC)[25-11-2009] [3] Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 391 (Karnataka)/[2009] 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka)[15- 09-2009] and [4] Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(3) [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)/[2014] 222 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) (MAG)/[2014] 366 ITR 408 (Karnataka)/[2014] 266 CTR 246 (Karnataka)[04-02-2014] . If those decisions are applied the above sum would not have been disallowed under the…

C. Doctor & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off on the

ITA 5654/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 139Section 143

…)George Williamson 284 ITR 619 (Gau). iv) Sunil Goel v. ACIT 118 TTJ (Del) 415. v) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court). vi) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court). vii) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka). viii) Additional CIT v. Vestas RRB India Limited (2005) 93 TTJ (Del) 144. Though the appellant had drawn attention of the learned CIT (A) to the judgments of the Supreme Court and the above-said judgments, leaned CIT (A) has not at all considered the same in the appellant order. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -21…

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact The Amount Was Deposited In Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 37/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar ACIT/DCIT Mills Limited Vs. Circle-06, Jaipur 4th Floor Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACR 8906 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Mudit…

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Adit Rra Taxindia D-28, South Extension, Bengaluru, Part-1, New Delhi Karnataka Aaacs9311B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)

…hat the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 11,42,843/- on account of late deposition of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund and ESI which as per 4 the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of CIT Vs. A & Z Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Metropolio Fabrics Ltd. 350 ITR 327 (HP) and the judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd.229 CTR 448 are allowable to buttress the contention that the such contribution is allowable if the same is paid before the due date of filing of the return. 8. I find that under the identical facts the…

A W Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A.W.Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A W Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A.W.Industries Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

Cb Doctor Ventilators Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1086/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…266 CTR (Kar.) 246] f) Precision Products vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4/Ahd/2011)(Ahd)(2012) g) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited. 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court) h) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court) i) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka) j) CIT v. Nipso Poly Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 84 DTR 424 (H.P. High Court) k) Spectrum Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd v. CIT 215 Taxman 597 (Karnatka High Court) CB DOCTOR VENTILATORS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.24,220/…

Denis Chem Lab Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 2668/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) h) Sunil Goel v. ACIT 118 TTJ (Del) 415 i) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited. 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court) j) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court) Denis Chem lab Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 k) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka) I) Additional CIT v. Vestas RRB India Limited (2005) 93 TTJ (Del) 144 m) CIT v. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand-HC) n) CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) o) CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 53 (I) ITCL 433 (Raj-HC). p) Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad Vs. Hemla E…

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharjee, FCA, ld.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…nd added the amount of Rs.3,48,38,217/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Before the CIT-A the assessee in support of its contention relied on various following case laws:- • CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508(Del) • CIT Vs.ANZ Information Technology P.Ltd 318 ITR 123(Kar) • CIT Vs. Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar) • CIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 284 ITR 619(Gau) • ITAT, Delhi’s order dt. 06-09-2012 and various decisions of Courts, held that the case of assessee in depositing the Employee’s Provident Fund before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) is admissible. 5. The CIT-A after consider…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Telangana vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…to delete the addition in respect of this issue. 22. We are in conformity with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the issue is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. ANZ Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 123 (Karn). Therefore, the relevant grounds of appeal are allowed. 23. Ground Nos. 7 & 8 are general in nature requiring no adjudication. 24. Thus, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of October, 2015. ( JAS…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…to delete the addition in respect of this issue. 22. We are in conformity with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the issue is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. ANZ Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 123 (Karn). Therefore, the relevant grounds of appeal are allowed. 23. Ground Nos. 7 & 8 are general in nature requiring no adjudication. 24. Thus, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of October, 2015. ( JAS…

CIT v. Sabri Enterprises ( (318 ITR 123) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax