CIT v. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd.

370 ITR 305High Court2015#7585 most cited
15

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

Also reported as

44 Taxmann.com 170

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ACSection 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 80a(5)section 80acsection 80asection 139(4)section 80ibsection 80isection 80psection 139(1)section 142section 139section 80previous year

Judgments citing CIT v. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd.

THE KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 1449 ERICKAVU,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram Service .......... Appellant Cooperative Bank Ltd No. 1449, Erickavu P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha, Kerala [Pan: Aaabt 3036 B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu C S, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram Service .......... Appellant Cooperative Bank Ltd No. 1449, Erickavu P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha, Kerala [PAN: AAABT 3036 B] vs. ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Sabu C S, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Panchkula [CIT(A)] dated 16.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of t…

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 885/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

For Appellant: Shri Bansi Thakrar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 250Section 80P

…urt Constitutional Bench judgment and order in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. CA No. 3327/2007 , dated 30.07.2018 and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court judgment and order in the case CIT v. Shelcon Properties Private Limited (2015)370 ITR 305(Cal.HC). Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. The decision relied upon by the assessee either concerns its self with pre-amended Section 80AC or concerns itself with adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) while processing of the return wherein disallowance u/s 80P was made. We are not presently concerned with these disallowa…

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 884/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

For Appellant: Shri Bansi Thakrar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 250Section 80P

…urt Constitutional Bench judgment and order in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. CA No. 3327/2007 , dated 30.07.2018 and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court judgment and order in the case CIT v. Shelcon Properties Private Limited (2015)370 ITR 305(Cal.HC). Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. The decision relied upon by the assessee either concerns its self with pre-amended Section 80AC or concerns itself with adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) while processing of the return wherein disallowance u/s 80P was made. We are not presently concerned with these disallowa…

THE N.D.D. P AND T E.C.C SOCIETY LTD.,,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.611/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Nddp & Tec Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd, Ward-1 Nellore. Nellore. Pan:Aactt5322J (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri M. Chandra Mouleswara निर्धारितीती द्वारा Rao, C.A /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandra MouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

…lief can be given by the CIT(A) on this ground. The following case laws support the above view:- • The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v Shelcon Properties P Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 170 (Calcutta)/[2014] 225 Taxman 165 (Calcutta)(Mag.)[2015] 370 ITR 305 (Calcutta)/[2015] 273 CTR 106 (Calcutta) • The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Suolificio Linea Italia (India)(P.) Ltd. V JCIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 462 (Calcutta)/[2018] 255 Taxman 477 (Calcutta)/[2018] 407 ITR 16 (Calcutta) Page 28 of 29 AACTT5322J- THE N.D.D. P&T E.C.C. SOCIETY LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056964246(1…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 326/CHD/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The DCIT, M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd., बनाम Circle, 37/1, Kamboj Colony, Near Ravi Metal, VS Yamuna Nagar. Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAJCS7595N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Dhruv Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR तार"ख/Date of H…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

ITA 35/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…circumstances of the present case? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 305, wherein it has been clearly held that benefit can only be availed by the assessee if he has filed return of income on time. If the return has not been filed on time the benefits cannot be claimed. The decision has been rendered specifically with reference to Sec. 80AC?” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of Income elec…

LEKHA PARIKSHA VIBHAG KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,THANE vs. CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

ITA 268/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

Section 10BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…n within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act is mandatory to claim the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Infact similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd reported in 370 ITR 305 (Cal). Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Dalakoti vs ACIT in IT Appeal No. 7 of 2012 dated 27.8.2012. 5 M/s. Lekha Pariksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., 4.3. We further find that similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of EBR Enter…

RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-11 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3101/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Right Tight Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(1)(1) 18-A/31, Manish Kaveri, Four Aayakar R. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bunglows, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande
Section 119(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 30ASection 80Section 80ASection 80ISection 8O

…on of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and other several benches of the ITAT have decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel of the assessee admitted that the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Shelcon Properties 370 ITR 305 and Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Umesh Chandra Dalkoti vs ACIT (in ITA No. 07/2012) has denied the benefit of deduction where the return of income was filed belatedly. However, he referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vegetable Products 88 ITR 1924, the proposition that when two views are possible, the…

UMA DEVELOPERS,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(4), THANE

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun kumar Singh
Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…r section 80IB(10) of the Act cannot be allowed. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the fact that the provision of section 80AC of the Act is mandatory has been upheld by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v/s Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd., 370 ITR 305 (Cal.). Further, he submitted, when the language used in the provision is plain, simple and unambiguous, it cannot be interpreted in a different 5 Uma Developers manner to provide benefit to the assessee. He submitted, the provisions contained under a taxing statute have to be interpreted strictly as per the language used therein. He submitted,…

M/S. HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Himalya International Ltd. ITO Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., CAs, Ward-11(3) Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, New Delhi. Vivek Vihar-1 Vs. New Delhi 110095 PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3838; 3839/Del/2015 Assessment years 2009-10; 2010-11 ITO Himalaya International Ltd. Ward-11(3), Room No. 412, Vs. Shubhkhera, C.R. Building Paonta Sahib, New Delhi. Himachal Pradesh PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vinod B…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Himalya International Ltd. ITO Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., CAs, Ward-11(3) Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, New Delhi. Vivek Vihar-1 Vs. New Delhi 110095 PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3838; 3839/Del/2015 Assessment years 2009-10; 2010-11 ITO Himalaya International Ltd. Ward-11(3), Room No. 412, Vs. Shubhkhera, C.R. Building Paonta Sahib, New Delhi. Himachal Pradesh PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vinod B…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3838/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Himalya International Ltd. ITO Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., CAs, Ward-11(3) Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, New Delhi. Vivek Vihar-1 Vs. New Delhi 110095 PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3838; 3839/Del/2015 Assessment years 2009-10; 2010-11 ITO Himalaya International Ltd. Ward-11(3), Room No. 412, Vs. Shubhkhera, C.R. Building Paonta Sahib, New Delhi. Himachal Pradesh PAN AAACH0158H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vinod B…

ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. SIROYA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 4527/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…bench of Mumbai ITAT as has been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel before us. 15. In addition to that it is also noted by us that identical issue came up before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in similar circumstances in the case of CIT v. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd.370 ITR 305(Cal) wherein the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was denied by the AO by applying the provisions of section 80AC on the ground that the return was not filed by the assessee within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1). The claim was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that there was lack of negligence on the part of assessee in filing the retu…

D.C.I.T. 24(3), MUMBAI vs. SIROYA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 7246/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…bench of Mumbai ITAT as has been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel before us. 15. In addition to that it is also noted by us that identical issue came up before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in similar circumstances in the case of CIT v. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd.370 ITR 305(Cal) wherein the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was denied by the AO by applying the provisions of section 80AC on the ground that the return was not filed by the assessee within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1). The claim was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that there was lack of negligence on the part of assessee in filing the retu…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. M/S UNITECH LTD

The appeal is dismissed in the above terms

ITA/239/2015HC Delhi05 Oct 2015

Bench: The Due Date Specified Under Section 139(1)’, Which In This Case Meant On Or Before 31St October, 2008.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ASection 80I

…has placed reliance on the decision dated 27th August 2012 of the Uttarakhand High Court in ITA No. 07/2012 (Umesh Chandra Dalakoti v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) as well as of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 305 (Cal) both 2015:DHC:8364-DB ITA No. 239/2015 Page 3 of 5 of which have held the provision under Section 80AC of the Act to be mandatory. He has also referred to the decisions of the ITAT Special Bench in Saffire Garment…

CIT v. Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. (370 ITR 305) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax