How many judgments cite CIT v. Shivanand Electronics?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shivanand Electronics come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 139(1), Section 250, Section 44AB, Section 80IA, Section 119(2)(b).

CIT v. Shivanand Electronics

209 ITR 63High Court1994#1102 most cited

What is CIT v. Shivanand Electronics authority for?

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming specified deductions, such as under Section 80J or 80-IA, is directory and not mandatory. Such an audit report can be filed at any time before the assessment is framed or completed under Section 143(1).

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shivanand Electronics · 209 ITR 63 · Section 80J(6A) · Section 80-IA(7) · Section 143(1) · audit report filing · Form 10B · directory vs mandatory · belated filing · claim of deduction · assessment procedure · compliance requirements

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 139(1)Section 250 Section 44AB Section 80IA Section 119(2)(b)Section 80J(6A)Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 10ba section 10(10c)section 10b(8)section 80j section 80a(5)section 288 additional depreciation section 10b section 80jja section 80jjaa

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivanand Electronics

C D O Jain Education Society, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Hubli

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

ITA 2570/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 250

…ITA No.2570/Bang/2025 CDO Jain Education Society, Gadag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 CDO Jain Education Society CDO School Road CDO Jain English School ACIT Behind Sarvodaya Colony CPC Vs. Gadag 582 103 Bengaluru Karnataka PAN NO : AAATC6144K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Chandrashekhar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at…

Income Tax Officer -1(1), Indore vs. Agroh Toll Highways Private Limited, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

…which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 801A(7), we f…

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7431/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2024-25] Karma Biotech Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 13(1) House No. 4, 1st Floor New Delhi MAT Calf Road, Vs Civil Lines Delhi-54 PAN- AAHCK2972R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue/Department by Sh. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI: This appeal fi…

Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR

Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

…avir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266, it has been held that "if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner" Further in the case of Commissioner of Income-lax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 (Bombay HC) it has been held by Hon'ble Court that "When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming certain benefit, to comply with requirements which are associated with such benefit, the assessee cannot get the benefit without doing his part of the duty. He cannot be allowed to say 18 ITA.No.1165/Hyd./2025 that it was for the ITO to…

G.C.T.Alumni Association, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3673/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 119Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…ourse of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 21 (b). We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold that even if Form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made t…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. Time Technoplast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No.6858/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 2Nd Floor, 55, Corporate 7(2) Avenue, Saki Vihar Road, Room No. 637, Aaykar Andheri East, Mumbai – Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400072, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact3858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69CSection 801CSection 80I

…sue was decided in the favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the hon’ble Supreme Court ruling of CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd, PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd ( 446 ITR 1 (SC)) and High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63. P a g e | 17 ITA No. 6857 & 6858/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19 Time Technoplast Ltd., Mumbai 17.2 It was noted by the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IC for past 10 years, the AY 2008-09, being first year for deduction. The deduction u/s 80IC had been partly disallowed in earlier years on the grounds that one of the un…

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…which, again, while considering the provisions of section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 7. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631 (Punj. & Har.). 8. In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7)…

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…ny time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (C…

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…, which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provis…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Arif Industries Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

…, which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the Page 5 of 7 provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 8…

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…Systems (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 2017 (Kar.) • CIT -Vs- Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del.) • CIT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) • CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) • CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in “CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 com 25 Mad)” was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in “CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries P…

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar It Park Thane vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4338/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

…f assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this court in the case CO. 242/Mum/2025. of CIT v. Shivanand Electronics reported in [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs." 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold that even if form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made that…

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar, It Park vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4327/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

Mulakala Mohan Krishna, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR

Section 143(1)Section 80I

….) g) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs.AN Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481. h) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) j) CIT-1 vs. M/s. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd 18 Taxmann.com 25 (Mad) k) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engg. Ltd vs. ITO 164 Taxmann.com 740 l) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Croygas Equipments (P) Ltd in ITA No.415/Ahd/2020 dated 16.06.2023 m) ITAT Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the c…

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

…ourse of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 21(b). We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold that even if Form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made th…

Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(1)

…n.com 25 and the Karnataka High Court in the case in Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Vs. Ace Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 207(Karnataka). That was also the view of the Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), and Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT-(1996) 219 ITR 721 and Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 10. In the instant case, the Form 10B was filed on 30.03.2021 and the return of income was processed on 30.11.2021. We find that the assessee had obtained audit report in Form 1…