What is ITO v. Kewal Construction authority for?

Ownership of an infrastructure facility is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under section 80IA. Additionally, business disallowances that enhance business income make that enhanced income eligible for deduction under section 80P.

How many judgments cite ITO v. Kewal Construction?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Kewal Construction (354 ITR 13), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Kewal Construction come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 80IA, Section 143(3), Section 14A read with Rule 8D, Section 250.

ITO v. Kewal Construction (354 ITR 13)

THE VAZHAYOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, TRIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

ITA 580/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharythe Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant No.D1989, Head Office, Azhinhlam P.O., Ernad, Malappuram Dist., Kerala-673632 [Pan: Aacat 5682 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Cooperative Society Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Nfac, Delhi [For Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 19.06.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Member & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Member. The Return Of 2 The Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 Was Filed On 30/03/2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-3, Tirur (For Short, ‘Ao’) Vide Order Dated 19/12/2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,72,40,710/- By Disallowing The Claim For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act By Holding That The Appellant Is A Cooperative Bank & Hit By The Provisions Of Section 80P(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

…allowance would enhance the business income and, therefore, the business income so enhanced shall be eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act.To the same effect, the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs Keval Constructions (354 ITR 13) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vishvambharnath Tiwari (ITA No. 02/2011). 6. In the light of the settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the additions made by the AO would partakes character of the business income, qualifies for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Accordingly, no addition is required…

ACIT CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1108/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Spec…

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1104/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Spec…

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 796/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein th…

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 795/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein th…

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 713/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P

…sment on account of various disallowances made by the AO, is eligible for deduction u/c VI-A of the Act, has been a subject matter of debate before various High Courts. On the one hand, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ‘ITO Vs Keval Construction’ reported in 354 ITR 13, and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sunil Vishwambhamath Tiwari’ reported in 388 ITR 630 and also Honb’le Allahabad High Court in ‘PCIT Vs Sunya Merchant’ reported in 72 taxmann.com 16, have held that, the deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits enhanced by way of the disallowance. Per contra, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court i…

MATHAVANKURICHI PACCS,TUTICORIN vs. ITO,WARD-3, TUTICORIN

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

ITA 97/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80Section 80P

…) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income tax Officer Ward 5(1) vs. Keval Construction, Tax Appeal No. 443 of 2012, December 10, 2012, Gujarat High Court. (2013) 354 ITR 13. • Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Nagpur vs. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari, IT Appeal No. 2 of 2011, September 11, 2015, Bombay High Court. (2016) 388 ITR 630 (ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking or which the assessee would be entitled for deduction unde…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6488/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case 37 I.T.A.Nos.6044 & 6488/Del./2019 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. laws relied by th…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6044/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case 37 I.T.A.Nos.6044 & 6488/Del./2019 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. laws relied by th…

M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 206/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

…he appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO v/s. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Spec…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 1161/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

…he appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO v/s. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Spec…

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 152/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction Page 9 of 13 under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.20…

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 151/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction Page 9 of 13 under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.20…

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 150/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction Page 9 of 13 under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.20…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 7155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 801ASection 80I

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note ITA No. 2401 & Ors 5 M/s. Ircon International Ltd. that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly mi…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 5460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 801ASection 80I

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note ITA No. 2401 & Ors 5 M/s. Ircon International Ltd. that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly mi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 528/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 801ASection 80I

…the appellant alone cannot determine the character of the appellant which in our opinion was that of development. The argument of revenue that infrastructure facility should be owned by the appellant is also misplaced in view of ITO vs. Cable 24 Constructions 354 ITR 13 (Guj.) and various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We also note ITA No. 2401 & Ors 5 M/s. Ircon International Ltd. that the Ld. CIT (DR) tried to raise issues which were not even the case of the assessing officer and this in our considered opinion is clearly impressible. Case laws relied by the revenue are clearly mi…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LAB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein th…

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein th…

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 683/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…e u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In this regard, we find that two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Born) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Gui) have taken the view that when ITA Nos.682, 683/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 17 disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its Circ…

ITO v. Kewal Construction

What is ITO v. Kewal Construction authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. Kewal Construction

THE VAZHAYOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, TRIRUR

ACIT CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

MATHAVANKURICHI PACCS,TUTICORIN vs. ITO,WARD-3, TUTICORIN

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, BANGALORE

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-12(2), NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LAB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE