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

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 9 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 (Bombay); 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 (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 80-IA(7), we feel…

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

…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." 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 wo…

Victoria Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…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…

Yuva Chintana Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 253(5)

…t any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 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 (Bom), apart from the Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). The Calcutta High Court in the case in CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribuna…

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 18/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24 Iifl Samasta Finance Limited 110/3, Lalbagh Main Road Krishnappa Layout Dcit Vs. Bangalore 560 027 Circle 3(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No :Aaacc4577H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Gowthama H.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80J

…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." 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…

Vivek Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Suri

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

ITA 163/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…Notification No. 9 dated 19.09.2017. Further, relying upon the decisions in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 (Bombay HC), the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made and have also considered the facts of the case. In the paper book filed before us, the assessee has relied upon the following…

Raniwala Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 10 (A.Y. 2023-24)/JPR/2025 M/s. Raniwala Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Geejgarh Vihar Scheme, Next to Hilton Hotel, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur – 302 006. ..... Appellant Vs. Asstt. /Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6, Jaipur. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 05/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/05/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by th…

Swami Satyaprakashnand Shiv Mandir Trust, Udham Singh Nagar vs. AO (Exemption), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…raming 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 4 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. 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2 ) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by th…

Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee Trust, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Multitaxes 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 Taxmann.com 25 Mad) was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries P…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

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

…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] 126 Taxman 43…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

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

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

…ming 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 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. M/s.Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2) has also concurred wit…

Arpit Kumar Tomar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…claim for benefit of tax relief was made by the appellant and therefore the primary onus is on the appellant to comply with the statutory requirements, as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 as under: “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 that was for the ITO to ask him to do so. If the assessee does not do his part of the statutor…

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 90

…principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. 14. Further, reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63, which held that when the legislature imposes a duty on an assessee to fulfill certain procedural requirements to claim a benefit, failure to do so disentitles the assessee from availing that benefit. The Hon’ble Court observed that an assessee cannot argue that it was the duty of the tax authorities to remind them to comply with procedural norms.…

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…unal as well as the Hon’ble High Court by holding that even if the Form was filed during the course of assessment proceedings, it amounted to sufficient compliance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the judgment in CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom), approved the view of the Hon’ble High Court having the effect that the requirement of filing Form 3AA was a necessary ingredient for claiming additional depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court…

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

…er following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law without deviating from the prescribed procedure………….” 4.8 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 has held 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 that it was for the ITO to ask him to do so. If the assessee does not do his part of the…

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

…claim was allowed, to explain that otherwise 2 assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act.Ld.AR relied on following case laws : 1. CIT vs. G M Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC). 2. CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.). 3. CIT-1 vs. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd., [2012] 205 Taxman 11 (Mad.) (HC). 4. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Del.) (HC). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not filed the Audit Report in form 10CCB within the statutory time limit. Ld.DR submitted that hence CPC h…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Hisar vs. Synergy Waste Management Private Limited, Hisar

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3557/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…unal as well as the Hon'ble High Court by holding that even if the Form was filed during the course of assessment proceedings, it amounted to sufficient compliance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the judgment in CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom), approved the view of the Hon'ble High Court having the effect that the requirement of filing Form 3AA was a necessary 11 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. ingredient for claiming additional depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment pro…

Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…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." 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 w…