What is Fibrefill Engineers v. CIT authority for?

A deduction under Section 80IC cannot be denied solely because the return of income was filed belatedly, provided the conditions for filing a belated return under Section 139 are met.

How many judgments cite Fibrefill Engineers v. CIT?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite Fibrefill Engineers v. CIT (177 TTJ 556), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Fibrefill Engineers v. CIT (177 TTJ 556)

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

…C. 46. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and also referred to the following decisions:- a) Symboisis Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 190 TTJ 518 (Chandigarh ITAT) b) Fiberfill Engineers vs. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 556 (Del. Tribunal) c) Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries vs DCIT in ITA No. 829/Chd/2018 d) Hansa Dalakoti vs. ACIT (2012) 50 SOT 511 (Delhi) e) Olavanna Service Co-op. Bank vs. ITO in ITA No. 398/Coch/2014 f) Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 01/PAN/2023; and g) Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…C of Bombay) - 3.4 CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) where also it was held that to fulfill the requirements of section 54 the expiry of one year should be seen as per provisions of section 139 (4). - 3.5 Fibrefill Engineers vs ACIT (2016)177 TTJ 556 (ITAT Delhi) In this case it was held that - "A bare perusal of this section (139(4)) makes it clear that the legislature itself has allowed the assessee to file return belatedly subject to fulfillment of conditions written in the said section. Therefore, once those conditions are met, then return filed by the assessee would for all technical pur…

The Kadavalur Service Cooperative Bank Limited No3821, Thrissur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 637/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip BalachandranFor Respondent: 08.02.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 804(5)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…ore in the ITA No.: 614/Bang/2021 that Section 80A(5) cannot be invoked for denying Deduction u/s 80P even if ITR is not filed. Further, the Appellant wishes to place its reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Fibrefill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held that the provision of Sec. 804(5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. Hence, it may be reasonably inferred that 804(5) cannot be used to deny the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. 5. The Honorable CIT(A), upheld the decision of the Learned Assessing Officer (LdAO) and thereby dismissed the Appeal primarily on the pr…

Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T and N T Path Mydt Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

…f Section 8OA (5) of the Act are directory and not mandatory and therefore deduction under Section MOP cannot be denied by making the provision section 80A (5) of the Act We relied upon decision of ITAT Delhi in case of the Fibre fill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held that the provision of Sec 80A (5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. The said section cannot be evoked for denying the deduction u/s 80Peven if ITR is nor filed. 3. Also, Section 80AC was amended wef 01.04.2018 prospectively. Before 31.03.2018 Section 80AC was applicable to any deduction is admissible under sect…

Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Limited, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 614/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Prathamika Krishi Pattina, Ito, Vs. Sahakara Sangha Ltd., Ward – 2, Belur Road, Salagame, Hassan – 573 201. Hassan – 573 201. Pan : Aabap 8799 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10ASection 10BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 80A(5)Section 80P

…(5) of the Act are directory and not mandatory and therefore deduction under section 80P cannot be denied by making the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act. The assessee relied on th decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Fibrefill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held that the provision of sec. 80A(5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. The said section can not be invoked for denying the deduction u/s.80P even if ITR is not filed. The assessee contended that the deduction available to a Co-operative Society u/s80P is in the nature of incentive provided which cannot be denied b…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Navanidhi Vividhoddesha

WA/4020/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

…er dated 21/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 4. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.), wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to…

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. K. M. Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd

WA/4016/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

…r dated 21/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.)], wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has t…

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Balkuru Halu Uthpaadakara

WA/4011/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

…r dated 17/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.)], wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has t…

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Sasthavu Halu Uthpadakara Mahila

WA/4015/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

…r dated 21/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.)], wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has t…

Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Keradi Milk Producers' Women

WA/4019/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

…r dated 17/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 4. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.), wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to…