Packers (India) v. ITO

99 ITD 383Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#26128 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 10(23C)(iiiab)Section 12AASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 10BSection 11Section 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 12asection 143(1)section 143section 14indianfacdocument

Judgments citing Packers (India) v. ITO

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ASLALI KELAVNI MANDAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1622/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…under section 10(23C) of the Act. 5. The CIT(Appeals), after considering the submissions, held that CPC had mechanically denied the exemption without assigning any reason. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in Packers (India) v. ITO (99 ITD 383), the CIT(A) held that powers under section 143(1) are restricted to making prima facie adjustments and that a claim of exemption under section 10(23C) could not be denied without factual verification. The CIT(A) therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) as claim…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1, AHMEDABAD vs. ASLALI KELAVNI MANDAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1591/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…under section 10(23C) of the Act. 5. The CIT(Appeals), after considering the submissions, held that CPC had mechanically denied the exemption without assigning any reason. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in Packers (India) v. ITO (99 ITD 383), the CIT(A) held that powers under section 143(1) are restricted to making prima facie adjustments and that a claim of exemption under section 10(23C) could not be denied without factual verification. The CIT(A) therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) as claim…

RIDDHI SEVA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

ITA 370/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…eipt has been computed as income and the adjustment could only be made in one of the specific adjustments specified in section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee further placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) Packers (India) Vs. ITO (2006) 99 ITD 383 (ITAT Ahd) 2) CIT vs Pesticides India Ltd. 283 ITR 304 (Raj.) 3) CIT vs Mahesh Kumar A Rathod 198 Taxation 173 (Guj.) 8. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in Anita Seth VS DCIT, Bangalore CPC in ITA No.109/Kol/2022 order dated 18.4.2022 in support of the claim that the CPC cannot disallow the expendit…

Packers (India) v. ITO (99 ITD 383) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax