How many judgments cite CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited (318 ITR 135), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 10AA, Section 10B, Section 11, Section 11(2), Section 119(2)(b).

CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited

318 ITR 135High Court2009#3739 most cited

What is CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited authority for?

The furnishing of an audit report during assessment proceedings, rather than by the due date of filing the return, is considered a directory and not mandatory compliance for claiming deductions under Section 80-IA.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited · Section 80-IA · audit report filing · directory provision · mandatory provision · assessment proceedings · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

179 Taxmann 310

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 10AA Section 10B Section 11 Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12 Section 12A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115ba section 115baa section 10b(8)section 80j(6a)section 80j domestic company section 12a(1)(b)carry forward of losses section 139(5)section 10b section 11(2)section 119(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Web Commerce (India) Private Limited

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…dation [2005] 274 TTR 562 (Guj): VIII. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [19931 201 ITR 325 (G.): IX. CII v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016171 taxmann.com 35/120151376 ITR 456 (SC): X. CIT v. Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 310/318 ITR 135 (Delhi): XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [20091 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi): XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. 120151 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad. v. Dy. CIT 120191 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.): 9. Further, we are also an agreement for the Counsel for the assessee that th…

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Brahmos Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4119/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4119/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25 Brahmos Realty Private Limited A-10002, Aristo Sappyhire, 2Nd Floor, Hasnabad Lane, Santakruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (M.H) Pan: Aadcr5685C ...........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(1),Mumbai (M.H.) .......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By Revenue By : Shri B.N Rao : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :13.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 2 Brahmos Realty Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2)(1)

For Respondent: Shri B.N Rao

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ मुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.4119/MUM/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25 Brahmos Realty Private Limited A-10002, Aristo Sappyhire, 2nd floor, Hasnabad Lane, Santakruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (M.H) PAN: AADCR5685C ...........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(1),Mumbai (M.H.) .......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by Revenue by : Shri B.N Rao : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

…if the audit report is furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid position of law has also been affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court i.e., the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Web Commerce (India) (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 318 ITR 135 (Del.)]. • Directory v. Mandatory provisions 14. With regards to aforementioned argument, reference is made to Section 801A(7) of the Act; as applicable to impugned assessment year 2019-20 that the legislature had stipulated such compliance as "the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income" whereas the Revenue's stand seeking to evoke…

Tainwala Personal Care Products Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

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

…date of filing return of income, and such audit report was filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT us Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 135/178 Taxman 310 (Delhi) also held that once audit report is filed before framing of assessment, the provisions of Section 80-IA (7) would be complied as furnishing of such report at the time of filing of return is directory in nature and not mandatory. Considering the similar principle that the assessee prayed before the ld. CIT(A) to allow it to…

Shyamsundar Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

ITA 1653/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 225 Taxman 70(Guj) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) which are distinguished both in fact as well as in law as the same pertain to allowability of deductions in late filing of audit report and Form 10IC is involved herein ? 3. We have elaborately heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 4. The short issue which falls for consideration in this ap…

Jsw Minerals Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6137/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.Deepa Khare,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT DR)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234B

…date of filing return of income, and such audit report was filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 135/178 Taxman 310 (Delhi) also held that once audit report is filed before framing of assessment, the provisions of Section 80-IA (7) would be complied as furnishing of such report at the time of filing of return is directory in nature and not mandatory. Considering the similar principle that the assessee prayed before the ld. CIT(A) to allow it to…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata vs. Fastner Commodeal Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

ITAT/267/2024HC Calcutta10 Jan 2025

Bench: :

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 260A

…the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 225 Taxman 70(Guj) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) which are distinguished both in fact as well as in law as the same pertain to allowability of deductions in late filing of audit report and Form 10IC is involved herein ? We have elaborately heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. The short issue which falls for consideration in this a…

Mahalaxmi Asphalt Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1291/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 80I

…ment proceedings, held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Assessment Year: 2020-21 Page 3 of 4 Act, The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 135. The Ld. AR further relied upon the following decisions :- 1) KGY Glass Industries (P) Limited (Tax Appeal No.722 of 2023) (Guj.) 2) Aurangabad Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Caourt) 2010 SCC Online SC 1277. 3) Medicaps Limited, 323 ITR 554 (Madhya Pradesh) 4) Zenith Processing Mills, 219 ITR 721 (Guj) 5) Web Commerce India (P) Limited, 318 ITR…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Astrotech Steels Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 1150/CHNY/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. AR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154

…form and it was a regulatory measure only. 4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd (2009) (318 ITR 135) to support the submissions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DIC Fine Chemicals P. Ltd Vs. DCIT in ITA No.2502/Kol/2018 dated 12-06-2018 and the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in ACIT vs. Hind Speed Technologies (ITA No.1600/Hyd/2014 dated 08-12-2017), concurred with the claim of the assessee and direc…

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…[2005] 274 ITR 562 (Guj.); VIII. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.); IX. CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC); X. CIT v. Web Commerce (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 310/318 ITR 135 (Delhi); XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi); XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (All.); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.). 6.3. In light of the above facts and judicial pronouncements, we find that t…

Fastner Commodeal Private Limited, Siliguri vs. ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1010/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

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

…ng case laws: “i. Zenith Processing Mills vs CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) ii. CIT vs Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj) iii. Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. vs DCIT 225 Taxman 70 (Guj). iv. CIT vs Web Commerce India (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) v. CIT vs Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 319 vi. CIT vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 396 (Bom) vii. CIT vs National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC) viii. Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1991) 188 ITR 403 (SC).” 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee has…

S M K R Vashi High School, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/SRT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.515/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Physical Court Hearing) S.M.K.R Vashi High School Income Tax Officer-Exemption Ward, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Umbhrat Road Maroli Bazar, Vs. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jalalpore Navsari-396436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs 0980 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

…CIT vs. Mayur Foundation 2274 ITR 562 (Guj) ITA No.515/SRT/2023 A.Y. 21-22 SMKR Vashi High School  Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj)  CIT vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj)  CIT vs. Web Commerce Pvt. LTd. 318 ITR 135 (Del)  CIT vs. Dr.L.M.Singhvi 289 ITR 425 (Raj)  Kokan Kala Shikshan Vikaas Sanstha vs. DCIT 645/Pun/2021 (Pune Trib.)  Society for Integrated Development in Urban and Rural Areas vs. DCIT 90 ITD 493 (Hyd. Trib.) 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the ld CIT(A), which we have already n…

Shivam Wellness Private Limited, Surat vs. ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 493/SRT/2023[A.Y 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.492 & 493/Srt/2023 (Ays 2020-21 & 2021-22) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shivam Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Adit-Cpc, Bangalore Clinic, Hg-1, I.T.C. Building, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha, Vs Majura Gate, Ring Road, No.48/1, 48/2, Surat-395 001 Beratengaagrahara, Housr [Pan Abbcs 3673 G] Road, Uttarahalli Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 254(1)

…unal in the case of KGY Glass Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.316/SRT/2022 dated 11.05.2023, Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj), CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj) & CIT vs. Web Commerce India (P) Ld. (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Del), wherein audit report other forms are filed out of time in such cases due to procedural laps, the assessee was held for eligible for deduction as per relevant provision of the Act. Considering the following same principle, that assessee furnished Form-10IC, before Tribunal, and the assessee fulfil the other requisite conditions, the grounds…

Shivam Wellness Private Limited, Surat vs. ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 492/SRT/2023[A.Y 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 254(1)

Kgy Glass Industries (P) Ltd, Surat vs. Asstt. Director of Income of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 316/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Kgy Glass Industries (P) Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Plot No. 827, Gidc, Sachin, Tax, Cpc, Vs. Surat-394230. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaeck 0946 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

…case laws: (i) Zenith Processing Mills Vs CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) (ii) CIT Vs Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj)] (iii) Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs DcIT 225 Taxman 70 (Guj) (iv) CIT Vs Web Commerce India (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) 4 KGY Glass Industries (P) Ltd Vs Asst.DIT (v) CIT Vs Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 319. (vi) CIT Vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bom) (vii) CIT Vs National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC) (viii) Goodyear India Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (1991) 188 ITR 403 (SC) 6. On the oth…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies (P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…r high court have also taken a similar view like Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electric Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 249 ITA No.07/SRT/2023 A. Y. 2019-20 M/s Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies (P) Ltd., (Del) and CIT vs. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 135 (Del), which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.2 In view of the above, the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA to the appellant after verification of Form 10CCB filed by the appellant. Ground No.1 is treated to have been partly allowed.” 5. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.09.2022. 6. Aggrieved…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies(P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 80I

…ly applies to the facts of the assessee’s case under consideration. 10. We note that a similar view was upheld by the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Contimeters Electrics Pvt. Ltd., 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) and CIT v. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) and these decisions were upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. We note that all the grounds of appeals are inter-connected and are dealt with jointly. We note that Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act merely because form 10CCB was not filed alongwith the return of income though the return of income was fi…

The ITO, Ward-2, Junagadh vs. M/S D. Jewel, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R

Section 10ASection 115J

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अपील सं./ITA No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/s. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh. PAN: AAHFD4817H (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R Assessee by : Shri Samir Jani, A.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WAS…

Srikaram Prescience P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2845/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Srikaram Prescience Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ltd. Ward-24(2), 99/1, Block C, Inderpuri, New Delhi New Delhi-110012 Pan – Aamcs9536J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 56

…1 ITA No. 2845/Del./2019 M/s. Srikaram Prescience P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Srikaram Prescience Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd. Ward-24(2), 99/1, Block C, Inderpuri, New Delhi New Delhi-110012 PAN – AAMCS9536J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2019 in a…