CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT v. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd.

238 ITR 257High Court1999#9794 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80IASection 10ASection 10AASection 10CCBSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT v. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd.

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

…ar: 2018-19 Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Centimeter Electricals Private Limited, 2009 178, taxmann.com, 422 (Delhi) and the decision of this Court in the case of Murali Export House vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999, 238 ITR 257 (Cal.) were referred to. Thus, the Tribunal rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. Respectfully following the decisions of various High courts and the coordinate benches of the tribunal, in the matter, we hold that the submission of form 10CCB is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is sufficient…

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

…. PCIT VS Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) 2. CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTd. v. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (KAR) 3. CIT v. Shahzedanand Charity Trust [1997] 228 ITR 292/[1998] (Punjab and Haryana) 4. Murali Export House v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 257 (Calcutta) 5. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/178 Taxman 422 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Medicaps Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 554 .(Madhya Pradesh) 2.16. The assessee submitted that his case is much stronger as there is no delay either in filing the return of income nor in filing the audit report in form 10CCB of the Act. The denial of…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SURENDRA STEELS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial question of law is

ITAT/23/2023HC Calcutta03 Apr 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th May, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.78/Kol./2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration : - “Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80-Ic Of The Act ? ”

Section 260ASection 80

…of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Contimeter Electricals Private Limited, 2009 178, taxmann.com, 422 (Delhi) and the decision of this Court in the case of Murali Export House vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999, 238 ITR 257 (Cal.) were referred to. Thus, the Tribunal rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. 3 The stay application is also dismissed. (T.S.…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. KAMAL LOCHAN DAS

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial question of law is

ITA/23/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th May, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.78/Kol./2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration : - “Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80-Ic Of The Act ? ”

Section 260ASection 80

…of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Contimeter Electricals Private Limited, 2009 178, taxmann.com, 422 (Delhi) and the decision of this Court in the case of Murali Export House vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999, 238 ITR 257 (Cal.) were referred to. Thus, the Tribunal rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. 3 The stay application is also dismissed. (T.S.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not…

M/S. SIDDHARTHA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as the ld AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 253/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ward-23(3), Ltd, C/O. M/S. Virendra New Delhi Kalra & Co., 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Virendra Kalra & Co., Ward-23(3), 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun New Delhi Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Vs. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ward-23(3), Ltd, C/o. M/s. Virendra New Delhi Kalra, & Co., 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun PAN: AAJCS1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ITO, C/o. M/s. Virendra Kalra, & Co., Ward-23(3), 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun New Delhi PAN: AAJCS1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv Date of Hearing 26/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 23/10/2018 O R D E R P…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIDDHARTH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as the ld AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6886/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ward-23(3), Ltd, C/O. M/S. Virendra New Delhi Kalra & Co., 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Virendra Kalra & Co., Ward-23(3), 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun New Delhi Pan: Aajcs1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Vs. Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ward-23(3), Ltd, C/o. M/s. Virendra New Delhi Kalra, & Co., 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun PAN: AAJCS1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Siddharth Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ITO, C/o. M/s. Virendra Kalra, & Co., Ward-23(3), 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun New Delhi PAN: AAJCS1167Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv Date of Hearing 26/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 23/10/2018 O R D E R P…