CIT v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust

184 ITR 537High Court1990#23372 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust

SALVI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 300/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Salvi Chemicals बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. C/O. H.N. Motiwalla & Co. 400020. 508 Sharda Chambers 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs0142E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Harish Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.09.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Under Section A.Y. 2014-15 36(1)(Iv) R.W.S 36 (2Ab) Of The Act, Amounting To Rs, 1,88,97,692/-, Particularly When, The Order Under Section 35(2Ab) Of The Act (In Form No. 3Cm) Had Been Granted Registration Upto March 31,2012 & Renewed Upto March 31, 2015. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Amounting To Rs. 1,88,97,692/ Under Section 35(1)(Iv) R.W.S. 35 (2Ab) Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Decisions Submitted At The Time Of Hearing Or Without Distinguishing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Motiwalla (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it.” Ld counsel further referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust, 184 ITR 537 (Bom), wherein, it has been observed that a form prescribed by the rules cannot qualify a statutory provision or impose a time limit which the statute does not provide . Ld counsel further relied on the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Claris Lifesciences ltd v ACIT, 111 ITD 902(Ahd), wherein, the Tribunal under the identical c…

CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ SMARAK SAMITI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E), CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 435/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…able. This view is duly supported by the following decisions referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. Sr Particulars No. I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. 82 ITR 50 (Supreme Court- 1971) 2. Commissioner v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust. 184 ITR 537 ( Bombay- 1990) 4 Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti 3. Commissioner of Income tax-Ill, Pune Vs. Sakal Relief Fund. 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay - 2017) 4. Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Nagpur Hotel Association. 1 14 taxman 255 (Supreme Court - 2001) 5. Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji & Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT 207 ITR 368…

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2061/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 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:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…17 before its amendment in 1971 has been held to be invalid not only by the Madras High Court in the case of Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust ( M. CT.) [1972] 86 ITR 282 but also this court in the case of CIT v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust [1990] 184 ITR 537. The Revenue contends that the ratio of these decisions will have no application to the amended rule 17 by which limitation is prescribed in the body of the rule and not in the body of Form No. 10. These decisions proceed only on the basis that limitation is neither prescribed in the 28 | P a g e Page 29 of 33 Act nor the Rules, which, according…