Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd.

262 ITR 10High Court2003#9606 most cited

What is Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The filing of an auditor's report is a distinct requirement from the maintenance and auditing of accounts.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises · Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. · audit report filing · auditor's report · maintenance of accounts · auditing of accounts · section 44AB

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 148Section 35ADSection 73ASection 80-IASection 44ABSection 11Section 12A(1)(U)

Issues it is cited on

section 35adsection 32asection 35asection 288section 73section 80jset off of lossestax benefitsection 35section 44absection 28section 143(1)(a)

Judgments citing Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd.

DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Skill Development Fund, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3647/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(U)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250

…that the audit report in Form 10B can very well be accepted at any stage of assessment. Reliance is placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, 228 ITR 292 (P&H); CIT vs. Jayant Patel, 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT vs. Magnum Exports Pvt. Ltd., 262 ITR 10 (Kol) that Form No. 10B can be submitted before the appellate authority and it is sufficient compliance since the requirement is directory and not mandatory. 4. Thus, there is no substance in the grounds. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3 ITA No.-3647/Del/2023 National Skill Development Fund Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.07.20…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 545/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…e) it was held that where the audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be considered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section 80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 544/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…e) it was held that where the audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be considered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section 80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 541/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…e) it was held that where the audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be considered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section 80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 359/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80I

…lowing decisions : i. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) iii. CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) iv. CIT Vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Guj.) v. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA No.1781/Pun/2013, order dt. 28.06.2016. vi. Sanjay Kukreja Vs. ACIT – ITA No.65/Del/2023, order dated 30.01.2024. 7. On the other hand, the ld.Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference by this Tribunal is called for. 8. We heard the rival subm…

Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Latur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 358/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80I

…lowing decisions : i. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) iii. CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) iv. CIT Vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Guj.) v. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA No.1781/Pun/2013, order dt. 28.06.2016. vi. Sanjay Kukreja Vs. ACIT – ITA No.65/Del/2023, order dated 30.01.2024. 7. On the other hand, the ld.Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference by this Tribunal is called for. 8. We heard the rival subm…

The ACIT, Circle 2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2277/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.4703, 4704, 4705/1-4, Vs Circle-2, Bharuch. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharch – 393002. Pan: Aabcj 8258 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…Sharma vs. ITO – 46 TTJ 276 (Del)/44 ITD 351 (Del) ii. CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries – 201 ITR 325 (Guj) 11 Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch iii. CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd – 254 ITR 503, 508-09 (Cal) iv. CIT vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd – 262 ITR 10, 12, 19 (Cal) v. CIT vs. Silver Mines – 170 Taxation 590, 590-91 (Raj) vi. CIT vs. G. Krishnan Nair – 259 ITR 727, 732 (Ker) vii. ITO vs. Novelty Garments – 256 ITR 688 (Raj) 10. The ld.AR of the assessee also filed following documents on record: 1 Acknowledgement of Return of Income and Computation of Income 2 Revised return of Income alongwith c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…m 3AA as an additional evidence for claim of additional 22 Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd. depreciation u/s 32(l)(iia) filed with your goodself vide letter dt. 26.10.2006.” 23. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Maganum Exports P. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal.) " CIT Vs Jayant Patel (2001) 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Shahzadanand Charity Trust (1998) 96 Taxman 494 (P&H) " CIT Vs Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust (1992) 198 ITR 511 (P&H) 24. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee asked the remand report from the AO and after considering the submissions of the assessee and the r…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XI vs. Indian National Congress/All India Congress Committee

ITA/145/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…olutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it shoul…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA/180/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…olutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it shoul…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA - 180 / 2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016
Section 139Section 13A

…olutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Kar), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayant Patel 248 ITR 199 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before the CIT(A). 92. At the outset it shoul…

Income Tax v. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Magnum Export (P.) Ltd. (262 ITR 10) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax