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 250Section 44ABSection 80IASection 119(2)(b)Section 80J(6A)Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 10basection 10(10c)section 10b(8)section 80jsection 80a(5)section 288additional depreciationsection 10bsection 80jjasection 80jjaa

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivanand Electronics

M/S Roopa Steam Calendering Works, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.284/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Roopa Steam Calendering The Dy. Commissioner Of Works, Income Tax, 647/1, Btra Ginning Compound, Vs. Centralized Processing Center, Palladam Road, Bengaluru. Tirupur – 641 605 [Pan: Aadfr-6895-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 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/[2Q031 126 Taxman 43…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Limited

C.A. No.-001449-001449 - 2022Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 72

…s the claim should be filed, is only directory. 4.8 It is further submitted that this Court in G.M. Knitting (supra) has specifically approved the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics ((1994) 209 ITR 63). That judgment dealt with an assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80HHC. Section 80HHC specifically prohibited the grant of deduction under Section 80HHC unless the stipulated audit report was filed along with the return of income. The assessee filed the required audit report long after the return. The Bombay High Court held that while…

Anabond Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 418/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra (CA) a/w Shri BFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80l

…irectory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. Similar was the view of High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 as well as various other decisions. 10. In the present case, we find that Form No.10CCB has already been uploaded by the assessee along with subsequent return of income and the assessee has been granted similar deduction in earlier years. Therefore, the statutory requirements have duly been fulfilled by the assessee and we would hold that the asse…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he chartered accountant certificate in form No. 10CCAA, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger paints India Ltd 254 ITR 503. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 and CIT versus Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 201 ITR 325. In view of the decisions relied upon, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claim of the assessee in order and allowed the claim accordingly. 26.5 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the submission of the Assessing Officer made during the remand proceedings and submitted that the assessee has not ful…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he chartered accountant certificate in form No. 10CCAA, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger paints India Ltd 254 ITR 503. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 and CIT versus Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 201 ITR 325. In view of the decisions relied upon, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claim of the assessee in order and allowed the claim accordingly. 26.5 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the submission of the Assessing Officer made during the remand proceedings and submitted that the assessee has not ful…

DCIT, Circle-11(1) vs. Ircon International Ltd

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he chartered accountant certificate in form No. 10CCAA, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger paints India Ltd 254 ITR 503. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 and CIT versus Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 201 ITR 325. In view of the decisions relied upon, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claim of the assessee in order and allowed the claim accordingly. 26.5 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the submission of the Assessing Officer made during the remand proceedings and submitted that the assessee has not ful…

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he chartered accountant certificate in form No. 10CCAA, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger paints India Ltd 254 ITR 503. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 and CIT versus Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 201 ITR 325. In view of the decisions relied upon, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claim of the assessee in order and allowed the claim accordingly. 26.5 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the submission of the Assessing Officer made during the remand proceedings and submitted that the assessee has not ful…

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he chartered accountant certificate in form No. 10CCAA, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Berger paints India Ltd 254 ITR 503. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 and CIT versus Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 201 ITR 325. In view of the decisions relied upon, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claim of the assessee in order and allowed the claim accordingly. 26.5 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the submission of the Assessing Officer made during the remand proceedings and submitted that the assessee has not ful…

Nayab International, Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1068/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 147Section 1OSection 234BSection 234CSection 271

…of the Act. An identical view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case ofCIT vs. A.M. Arunachalam, 208ITR 481 (Mad.). There are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view as under: - (ii) CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), (ii) Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.), (Hi) CIT Vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.). (iv) CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Referring to the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi…

M/S Unique Builders and Developers (Ajit), Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 249/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…y 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 435(C…

Ebaotech India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 549/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Ebaotech India Pvt. Dcit 5(1) Ltd., R.No. 525, Housefin Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Sunteck Certainity M.K Road Suit No. 801, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai 400020 C-21, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabce7013R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Satish R. Mody Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 549/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 20.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92

…t-to-cost basis. Before me also the learned AR has not furnished any evidence I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016 to that extent. It is not that the AO should ask for the evidence every time. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63, has held that 'when the legislature casts a duty on the appellant, he should fulfil. It cannot be said that the ITO should ask for it1. As the appellant has failed to substantiate with evidence that there was a clause in the agreement entered by the appellant with the HCL Technology or there was a direction from the principal company, Singapore(s…

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 4082/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito 25(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., 4Th Floor, C-101 237, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Pratyakshkar Bhavan Industrial Estate, New Link Bkc, Bandra (E) Road, Andheri(W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Abrfs2523G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Chetan Anjaria Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar Parida Date Of Hearing 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2018

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…udit Report (in Form No. 10CCB) is not filed alongwith the Return but is filed before the assessment was completed. The Assessee is entitled to deduction " 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom). This view was also supported by the following judicial pronouncements:  (2016) 387 ITR 105 (ALL) Pr. CIT Vs Surya Merchant Ltd  (2009) 317 ITD 249 (Del) CIT Vs Centimetres Electricals P. Ltd  (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Kar) CIT Vs ACE Multitaxes Systems P Ltd  (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) CIT Vs Jayant Patel  (2001) ITR 481(Mad) CIT Vs A.N, Aruna…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao At The Time Of Assessment Proceedings With A Certificate That The Above Said Forms Had Been Ito Vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 80I

…y 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 435(C…

Sri. Cheriyan Abraham, Bangalore vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R N Parbat, CIT-3 (D.R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292BSection 5

…rity and not illegality. This is so because the limitation provisions are directory and not mandatory. For this proposition reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered in the cases of - (i) CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 119 CTR (Bom) 94 : (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom) (ii) Direction of Inspection vs. Puranmal & Sons 1974 CTR (SC) 243 : (1974) 96 ITR 390 (SC) (iii) Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corpn. Bank (2002) 6SCC 33 (Paras 6 to 8 at 37-8). 39. It may be noted that no doubt, the foundation to assess or reassess is laid by issue of a valid notice under s. 148, but such jurisdiction is subject to further compli…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Ramesh Kshetrapal, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 610/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & HemangFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 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. 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…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

…sub-section (3) of Section 80HHB. Since the facts are different, this judgement is also not relevant in the present case. – The next judgement cited before us is the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High court rendered in the case of CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63). Very strong reliance was placed by the learned AR on this judgment but we find that for the same reasons as discussed above in respect of various judgements, this judgement is also not applicable in the present case because in that case also, the issue in dispute was regarding requirement of filing of audit report along with return of income for…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Ltd.: 353 ITR 679 (Raj.) (Mag) xx. CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Services: 201 ITR 325 (Guj) xxi. CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam: 208 ITR 481 (Mad) ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 83 of 134 xxii. CIT v. Shivanand Enterprises: 209 ITR 63 (Bom) xxiii. Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT: 219 ITR 721 (Guj) Therefore, he submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80IB/IC of the Act on the ground of non-filing of balance sheet of the eligible units, without appreciating that, the same were filed during the DRP proceedings and were available…

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above

ITA 408/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 80I

…e the form before completion of assessment as by that time the rules had been incorporated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shiva Nand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63, a case dealing with similar provision u/s 80J. The Hon’ble court came to the conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return was directory in nature and the assessee would be entitled to the deduction provided he files the report before completion of assessment and offers satisfactory explanation for failure to su…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1366/2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…sidering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 2008:DHC:3170-DB 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), w…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Central I vs. Contimeters Electricals P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1366 / 2008HC Delhi02 Dec 2008
For Appellant: Mr. R.D. JollyFor Respondent: None
Section 260ASection 263Section 288Section 80Section 80ISection 80J

…sidering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 2008:DHC:3170-DB 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), w…