What is ITO v. Kewal Construction authority for?

When a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act increases the profit of the assessee, deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act should be allowed on this enhanced profit.

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)

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 682/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-4, Bangalore vs. M/S Mphasis Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3418/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…hat two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court ITA Nos.3418/Bang/2018 & 65/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 12 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, Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2249/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Subex Limited, Rmz Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 Panno.Aabcs9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant By : Shri Aditya Raipuria, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

…s 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. ITA Nos.2249 & 2361(Bang/2019 6 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2449/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…f 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 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 w?ere 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. Spe…

M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…f 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 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 w?ere 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. Spe…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 977/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…f 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 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 w?ere 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. Spe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…f 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 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 w?ere 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. Spe…

M/S. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2114/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…nce 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 (Bom) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO v. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Guj) 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…