ITO v. Novelty Garments

256 ITR 688High Court2007#11652 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 139Section 143(1)Section 288Section 32Section 33BSection 44ABSection 80-IA

Judgments citing ITO v. Novelty Garments

OAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.584/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Oan Industries Private The Income Tax Limited, V Officer, 134, Malhotra Nagar, Near S Ward-4(2), Jaipur. Vidyadhar Nagar Stadium, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302039. Pan: Aacco9587F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Khandelwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena- Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(Appeals)-2, Pune U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For A.Y.2023-24 Dated Oan Industries Private Limited [A]

Section 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 44ASection 5Section 7Section 80

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ जयपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES “A” :: JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.584/JPR/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 OAN Industries Private The Income Tax Limited, V Officer, 134, Malhotra Nagar, Near s Ward-4(2), Jaipur. Vidyadhar Nagar Stadium, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302039. PAN: AACCO9587F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mukesh Khandelwal – CA Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena- Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 04/07/2024…

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)

…. 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 commutation of income 3 Audited Annual Financial Statements 4 Tax Audit Report 5 Form No. 56G 6 Revised Form No. 56G 7 Notice u/s. 142(1) 8 Reply to notice u/s. 142(1) d…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not filed with the return. In I.T.O. Vs. Novelty Garments 256 ITR 688 & I.T.O. Vs. VXL India Ltd. 312 ITR 187 it is held that sub section has two part requiring the filing of report is mandatory; the second part relating to the time of filing is only procedural since an appeal to the Tribunal is only a continuation of assessment proceedings, even if audit certificate is submitted before the Tribunal the deduction i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not filed with the return. In I.T.O. Vs. Novelty Garments 256 ITR 688 & I.T.O. Vs. VXL India Ltd. 312 ITR 187 it is held that sub section has two part requiring the filing of report is mandatory; the second part relating to the time of filing is only procedural since an appeal to the Tribunal is only a continuation of assessment proceedings, even if audit certificate is submitted before the Tribunal the deduction i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not filed with the return. In I.T.O. Vs. Novelty Garments 256 ITR 688 & I.T.O. Vs. VXL India Ltd. 312 ITR 187 it is held that sub section has two part requiring the filing of report is mandatory; the second part relating to the time of filing is only procedural since an appeal to the Tribunal is only a continuation of assessment proceedings, even if audit certificate is submitted before the Tribunal the deduction i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not filed with the return. In I.T.O. Vs. Novelty Garments 256 ITR 688 & I.T.O. Vs. VXL India Ltd. 312 ITR 187 it is held that sub section has two part requiring the filing of report is mandatory; the second part relating to the time of filing is only procedural since an appeal to the Tribunal is only a continuation of assessment proceedings, even if audit certificate is submitted before the Tribunal the deduction i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment and the deduction under the provision cannot be denid on the ground that certificate not filed with the return. In I.T.O. Vs. Novelty Garments 256 ITR 688 & I.T.O. Vs. VXL India Ltd. 312 ITR 187 it is held that sub section has two part requiring the filing of report is mandatory; the second part relating to the time of filing is only procedural since an appeal to the Tribunal is only a continuation of assessment proceedings, even if audit certificate is submitted before the Tribunal the deduction i…

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5885/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv., Ajit
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…during the course of assessment proceedings, also relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements as per which deduction u/s 80HHC/80IA could not be denied on mere ground of certain deficiencies in the said form. In the case of ITO Vs Novelty Garments (2007) 256 ITR 688 (Rajasthan), it was held that the submissions of Auditor's Report for the purpose of 10 I.T.A. No.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 deduction of 80HHC of the Income Tax Act in the old format of Form No. 10CCAC in place of new format is a defect, which can be corrected by filing the auditor's report in the revised format during the course of assessment procee…

ITO, GURGAON vs. M/S. ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3260/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv., Ajit
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…during the course of assessment proceedings, also relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements as per which deduction u/s 80HHC/80IA could not be denied on mere ground of certain deficiencies in the said form. In the case of ITO Vs Novelty Garments (2007) 256 ITR 688 (Rajasthan), it was held that the submissions of Auditor's Report for the purpose of 10 I.T.A. No.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 deduction of 80HHC of the Income Tax Act in the old format of Form No. 10CCAC in place of new format is a defect, which can be corrected by filing the auditor's report in the revised format during the course of assessment procee…