PCIT v. E-Funds International India (P) Ltd.

379 ITR 292High Court2015#14113 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IA Section 80IA(8)

Judgments citing PCIT v. E-Funds International India (P) Ltd.

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…ofits of the business of the undertaking”. The Appellant did not, therefore, making an altogether new claim for the first time. 54. Attention is invited to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs E-Funds International India (P) Ltd [2017] 379 ITR 292 (Del), wherein it was held that the assessee was permitted to revise the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings since it was merely a case of revision of the claim of deduction and not a fresh claim being made by the assessee for the first time. Relevant extracts of the decision are as under:…

Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6983/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik

Section 43B

…of revised return. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 172 Taxman 258 (Del.); (ii) CIT Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del.); (iii) PCIT Vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd. 379 ITR 292 (Del). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR submits that the issue may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. 5. Heard rival parties perused various orders of the authorities below. The claim of the assessee for deduction of the provision for…

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

…nts discussing this issue where it has been held that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction. The courts have clearly brought out the distinction between a fresh claim and revised claim. In the case of PCIT vs E-Funds International India Pvt Ltd, [2015] 379 ITR 292 (Del) this principle of assessee making a revision to the original claim and not fresh claim is clearly laid out by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The assessee in E-Funds International (supra) through a letter filed before the AO submitted a revised computation for the claim u/s.80HHE. The Delhi Hon’ble High Court in this case held that “The Court…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sonsltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…as granted deduction under section 80HHE. Sub- section 5 of Section 80HHE of the Act, therefore, in the present case would have no applicability…... Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT V/s E-fund International India P. Ltd. (379 ITR 292) wherein Hon’ble Court observed that making of claim u/s 80HHE in one year would not preclude an assessee from claiming the benefit u/s 10A in respect of the same unit in succeeding year. The purpose of sub-section (5) of Sec.80HHE was to avoid double benefit but that would not mean that if for a particular assessment year the assessee wants to c…

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2555/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2555/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Post Box No.7, Central Bank Road, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaan0509L बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Acit Ahmednagar Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances In Not Allowing Claims Made During The Course Of Hearing For Exempted Income Of Dividend Of Rs. 1487135/- & Expenses Debited To P & L A/C On Account Of Depreciation On Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- To Be Allowed As Exempted Income As Well As Allowable Expenses & The Same Were Also Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii Pune. 2. That Your Appellant Prays That He May Be Allowed To Add, To Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale

Section 41(1)

…a Shipyard Ltd., 379 ITR 289 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., 360 ITR 682 (Delhi); (iii) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Delhi); (iv) Influence vs. CIT, 55 Taxman 192 (Delhi); 5 PCIT vs. E-Funds International India (P.) Ltd., 379 ITR 292 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd., 124 taxman 510 (Karnataka); (vii) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., 109 taxman 93 (Calcutta); (viii) CIT vs. Ramco International, 332 ITR 306 (P&H); (ix) CIT vs. Arvind Products Ltd., 339 ITR 643 (Gujarat). 12. In view of the above settled position of law, the reasoning the of the ld. CIT(A)…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…i High Court while dismissing the department appeal has also discussed the order in the case of Influence Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 55 Taxman.com 192 (Delhi) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 292 (Delhi) and observed that :- “Thus a distinction was drawn between a new claim, which is barred and not permissible and a request or prayer made by the assessee for re-computation of the deduction already claimed. Latter was permissible and not barred in terms of the decision in the case.” 28 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 44. Further, it was submitt…