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

M/S. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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…

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…, 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 fe…

Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…aming 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 7. The Calcutta 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 the…

Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2095/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

…, 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 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…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 359/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80I

…ribed Report in Form No.10CCB within the due date prescribed is only a mere directory and not mandatory placing reliance on the following decisions : i. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) iii. CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) iv. CIT Vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Guj.) v. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA No.1781/Pun/2013, order dt. 28.06.2016. vi. Sanjay Kukreja Vs. ACIT – ITA No.65/Del/2023, order dated 30.01.2024. 7. On the other hand, the ld.Sr. DR placing relia…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 358/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80I

Copral Energy Private Limited, Krishnagiri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Copral Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No.12, Sipcot, Phase-Ii, Circle-1(1), Krishnagiri District-635 109. Salem. [Pan: Aaacc 8486 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…ing 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. 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 the…

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 101/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.101/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Sri Sai Educational Society, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Mahbubnagar. Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Pan: Aafas6773C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. :- This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Sai Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-10 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.01.2024 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of [Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Additional Commissioner Erred In Confirming The Intimation U/S 143(1) In Which The Gross Receipts Of Rs.4,27,15,832/- Are Treated As Total Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Learned Additional Commissioner Ought To Have Appreciated That The Assessee Filed Itr-7,Inadvertently & Offered The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

…eturn of income filed for each assessment year is processed separately considering the claims made in the said return of income. (j). It may be pertinent to quote the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 to emphasis the point: “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…

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…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 80IA(7), we fe…

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar DCIT बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJUPS-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. AR " थ"कीओ…

Akshay Rangraoji Umale, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12 Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 1428/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1428/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-19 Akshay Rangroji Umale A-402, Pride Panorama, Shivaji Hsg. Society, Sb Road, Pune-411016 Pan: Aampu7528K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5Section 6(1)Section 90

…angroji Umale Vs CPC ITA No.1428/PUN/2023 AY 2019-20 16. The hon’ble Apex Court in ‘CIT Vs G. M Knitting Ltd’ reported 379 ITR 456 (SC) & 93 CCH 475 which in turn appreciating the ratio laid by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) held that it shall be sufficient compliance with the law if requisite forms are filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made. The Co-ordinate bench in ‘Sonakshi Sinha Vs CIT’ reported in 66 CCH 0050, dealing with identical issue of belated filing of return and form no 67 adjudicated that, und…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

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

…nsidering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. I.T.A.No.652/Del/2023 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 80IA(7), we fe…

Saimaa Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3034/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyal & Saimaa Technologies Llp, 11, Ground Floor, C-Wing, Building No. 1, Kailas Industrial Company, Veer Savarkar Marg, Park Site, Vikhroli (West) Maharashtra -400 079 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Ld. DR

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

…emption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts of India have taken a view that filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases: 1. CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics [209 ITR 63 (Bom. HC)]-Sec. 80J (6A) 2. CIT vs. IA & IC Pvt. Ltd. [239 ITR 1 (Bom. HC)] - Sec. 32A (2B) 9. In view of above, we observed that Form No. 67 filed in compliance to Rule 128 of the Rules by the assessee was very well available on record while the return of the assessee processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and it is simply a benefit as granted in sec…

A R Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 175/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraa. R. Industries Vs. Dcit Khasra No. 52/7, Plot No.6 Cpc Village, Pehaladpur, Bengaluru New Delhi -110 042 Pan No. Aaofa 2476 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024

Section 143(1)Section 80I

…uring the course 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 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…

Universal Education Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1097/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 254(2)

…the case of Ziaret Mir Syed Ali (2001) 248 ITR 771 (J&K). The Authorised Representative submitted that it is pertinent that in making its ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom) (on filing of audit report u/s 80-J- new industrial undertaking incentive deduction), which in turn has been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. G M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC). In the Appellant's case, it has exercised its option in the course of assessment proceedings, therefore its exercise of option may be t…

Life Care Medical Complex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CPC, Bengaluru & NFAC, Delhi, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250(5)

…s been earlier laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358. 5.18. It may be further pertinent to quote the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 toemphasise the point as follows: “When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming certainbenefit, 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 d…

Broach Technology India Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 722/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Broach Technology India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Ltd., Plot Nos.K-219 & 220, Aurangabad. Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad. Pan: Aabcb 9287 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.K. Vijayavergia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2023 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 23.04.2023 For A.Y.2021-22 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Vijayavergia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266 has 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”. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 to emphasise the point as follows: “When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming a 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 2 Broach Technology India P.…

The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Tapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…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 v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 75 Taxman 93/209 ITR 63/119 CTR 94 (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 Bomba…

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1985/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80J

…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…