CIT v. Sak Soft Ltd.

298 ITR 63High Court2008#24294 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Sak Soft Ltd.

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…al Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83. (d) Decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502). (e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Jagson International Limited 214 CTR (Del) 227. (g) CIT vs. SakSoft Ltd. 298 ITR 63 (Mad.) (h) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) 6. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that in some cases, the payments have been made in cash in various instalment, less than Rs. 20,000/-. This fact coupled with absence of PAN and complete address of such recipient made these transactions compl…

Devi, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 428/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Devi, The Principal Commissioner Of 5, 4/2, Aparna Enclave, V. Income Tax, Madurai-1, Nandhini Street, No.2, V.P. Rathnaswamy Road, Velmurugan Nagar, Bibikulam, Madurai. Madurai – 625 010. [Pan: Anjpd-2937-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Choradia, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44Section 68

…and this legal view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd (supra). This view is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Sak Soft Ltd [2008] 298 ITR 63 (Mad), where it has been held that where two views are possible in matter on question of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act, and Assessing Officer preferred one view against another view, his order could not be said to be :-10-: ITA. No:428/Chny/2022 erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In this case, the AO has considered cash dep…

K.P.Murugasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 769/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 769/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri K.P. Murugasamy, The Deputy Commissioner Of 5, Aks Nagar, Thadagam Road, V. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Circle Iii, Coimbatore – 641 002. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aazpm 3140 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ruby George, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…le view of the matter and hence the revision order passed by the Ld CIT is not sustainable. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282)(SC) (b) Mepco Industries (294 ITR 121)(Mad) (c) Sacsoft Ltd (298 ITR 63)(Mad). 6. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee was required to comply with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board for treating the effluents, which the assessee has not 5 I.T.A. No. 769/Mds/2013 complied with and the same has resulted in infraction of Pollution Control Laws. The Court has awarded compensation upo…