Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 194C, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 40A(3), Section 1962, Section 234B, Section 234C.

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand (209 ITR 7), spanning 2019 to 2025.

209 ITR 7High Court1994#4472 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand authority for?

The first proviso to Section 43B is retrospective. Sales tax for the last quarter paid before the filing of the return for the assessment year is deductible.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandulal Venichand · Section 43B · first proviso · retrospective · sales tax deduction · last quarter payment · return filing date

Also reported as

73 Taxmann 349

Sections most often in play

Section 194C Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(3)Section 1962 Section 234B Section 234C Section 234D Section 254 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

bright line test amp expenditure comparable uncontrolled price method section 92(1)cost plus method functional analysis section 80jja section 80jjaa section 92c(3)section 92f management fees benchmarking analysis

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand

M/S Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 138/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.138/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), 614, Bomikhal, Cuttack Puri Rd Bhubaneswar Bhubanewswar-751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfk 7718 R (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shadiram Sharma, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shadiram Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44

…nable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. 11. This view has been accepted by a number of High Courts. In the case of CIT v. Chandulal Venichand [1994] 209 ITR 7/ 73 Taxman 349 , the Gujarat High Court has held that the first proviso to section 43B is retrospective and sales-tax for the last quarter paid before the filing of the return for the assessment year is deductible. This decision deals with the assessment year 1984-85. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Sri Jagannath Steel Corpn. [1991] 1…

Vivek Agarwal, Jharsuguda vs. ITO, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Exemptions, Bangalore vs. M/S Centre Fpr Cellular and Molecular Platforms, Bangalore

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

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. 9. This view has been accepted by a number of High Courts. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand [1994] 118 CTR (Guj) 257: (1994) 209 ITR 7(Guj): TC 19R.748, the Gujarat High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 43B is retrospective and sales-tax for the last quarter paid before the filing of the return for the assessment year is deductible. This decision deals with assessment year 1984-85. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sri Jagannath S…

The Thaliparamba Co-Op Urbank Bank Ltd, Taliparamaba vs. The Pr.CIT, Kozhikkode

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

ITA 35/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43D

…allowed by the Assessing Officer which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Before the CIT, the Ld. AR relied on decisions rendered in the cases of Allied Motors P. Ltd., vs.CIT (1997) 139 CTR 0364(SC); CIT vs.Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR 7(Guj) and CIT vs. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation (1991) 191 ITR 676(Cal.). The Ld. AR also stated that section 43D(a) was amended by the Finance Act, 2017 where co.op. banks have also been included for this deduction u/s.43D with effect from 01.04.2018. The CIT was of the view that the legislature had made it amply clear by stating that the provi…

M/S. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Buidh Nagar vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Lg L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No. Aaacl 1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] LG L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, PAN No. AAACL 1745Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Ramit katiyal, Advocate Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:…

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 6253/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Asstt. C.I.T A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Circle - 3 Estate, Mathura Road Noida [U.P] New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 1745 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 80J

…, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. This view has been accepted by a number of High Court. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chandulal Venichand ([1994] 209 ITR 7), the Gujarat High Court has held that he first proviso to section 43B is retrospective and sales-tax for the last quarter paid before the filing of the return for the assessment year is deductable. This decision deals with assessment year 1984-85. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation…