How many judgments cite PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd.?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd. (387 ITR 105), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 44AB, Section 143(1), Section 250, Section 80IA, Section 80IA(7).

PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd.

387 ITR 105High Court2016#6081 most cited

What is PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd. authority for?

The requirement to furnish an audit report along with the return of income under Section 80IA(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directory and not mandatory, and will be satisfied if the report is filed during the assessment proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. · Section 80IA(7) · audit report · directory requirement · filing of return of income · deduction u/s 80IA

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 44AB Section 143(1)Section 250 Section 80IA Section 80IA(7)Section 12(2)Section 80J(6A)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 80j(6a)section 10b(8)section 115jc section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 288 deduction u/s 80ia section 139(5)section 10b section 11(2)section 80ib section 80ac

Judgments citing PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd.

Income Tax Officer -1(1), Indore vs. Agroh Toll Highways Private Limited, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

…e above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which d not are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law arise at all for consideration. 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Honbble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3319, 3320 & 3321/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Comet Power Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(3) Plot No. 159, C-6, Amar Aayakar Bhavan Inds. Estate Premise CS, Mumbai CST Road, Vidyanagari S.O, Mumbai PAN – AADCC4431B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rupesh Pachori Revenue by Shri Virbhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These three appeals have been filed by the assessee c…

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Arif Industries Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

…by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration.” 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Honb’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the du…

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…35/120151376 ITR 456 (SC): X. CIT v. Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 310/318 ITR 135 (Delhi): XI. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [20091 178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi): XII. Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. 120151 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (AIL); XIII. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.)Lad. v. Dy. CIT 120191 107 taxmann.com 213/177 ITD 672 (Kol.): 9. Further, we are also an agreement for the Counsel for the assessee that the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 108 of the A…

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

…requirement and hence would stand satisfied if the accountant's report is furnished during the course of the assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 105 (All.)]. In our case, the factual position is on a much better footing as the auditor's report has been filed along with the revised return itself. 13. It is humbly submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the requirement of sub-section (7) of section 801A of the Act, which is made applicable to section 801B…

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. DCIT, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AJKPB5486A Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 02/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 230/DDN/2024 for AY 2019-20, arises out of the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [he…

Mahalaxmi Asphalt Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1291/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 80I

…9 ITR 721 (Guj) 5) Web Commerce India (P) Limited, 318 ITR 135 (Del) 6) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Limited (IT Appeal No.1366 of 2008 decided on 02.12.2008) 7) Ramji Mandir Religious and Charitable Trust, 205 ITD 150 (Ahd) 8) Surya Merchants Limited, 387 ITR 105 (All.) 9) Niteshkumar J. Shah (ITA No.430/Ahd/2022) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the decisions relied by the assessee are distinguishable on facts as in the present case the assessee has filed the Form 10IC not during the assessment proceedings but at the time of appellate proceedings. Thus, there is exorbitant delay and the same cannot be condo…

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

…by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration." 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due…

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “D”, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER And CO No.8/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (NGO) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) PAN:AAATT 5363…

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration.” 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due…

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

DCIT, (Exemption), Cir. -1(1), Kolkata vs. Socialist Unity Centre of India Communist, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 335/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, (Exemption), Circle-1(1), Kolkata Socialist Unity Centre Of India Vs Communist 48, Lenin Sarani Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aafas9043P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A. Senguptal, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Exemption Inspite Of The Express Provisions Of The Second Proviso To Section 13A Which Mandates That No Exemption Under Section 13A Shall Be Available If The Assessee Fails To Submit Contribution Report Under Sub-Section (3) Of Section 29C Of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 For A Financial Year? 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Exemption U/S 13A Of The Act To The Assessee Political Party Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Filed The Contribution Report In Form No. 24A To The Election Commission Of India Within The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Which Is Mandatory Provision For Availing Exemption U/S 13A Of The Act. 3. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Amend, Alter, Modify, Substitute, Add Or Abridge Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal During Any Stage Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri A. Senguptal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 13ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 29ASection 29C

…tory in nature and it calls for only substantial compliance. 7 I.T.A. No. 335/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Socialist Unity Centre of India Communist 9. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchants Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2016] 387 ITR 105 (Allahabad), has held that furnishing of audit report along with the return of income is a directory requirement and it would stand satisfied if audit report is furnished during assessment proceedings. Similar view was taken in the case of Church’s Auxiliary For Social Action (supra) as well as in the case of Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (supr…

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

…ch the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: • Principal CIT, Kanpur vs. Surya Merchants Ltd., I.T. Appeal No. 248 of 20 15, May 03, 2016, Allahabad High Court. (2016) 387 ITR 105. 3. The above views have attained finality as these judgments of the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad have been accepted by the Department In view of the above, the Board has accepted the settled position that the disallowances made under sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 4OA(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to…

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 90

…Page 8 of 10 filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following cases : ♦ CIT v. Axis Computers (India) (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 143 (Delhi) ♦ Pr. CIT v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16/387 ITR 105 (All.) ♦ CIT v. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379/223 Taxman 143 (Kar.) ♦ CIT v. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) ♦ CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of…

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 4082/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito 25(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Status Quo Lifestyle Co., 4Th Floor, C-101 237, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Pratyakshkar Bhavan Industrial Estate, New Link Bkc, Bandra (E) Road, Andheri(W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Abrfs2523G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Chetan Anjaria Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar Parida Date Of Hearing 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2018

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…nt was completed. The Assessee is entitled to deduction " 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom). This view was also supported by the following judicial pronouncements:  (2016) 387 ITR 105 (ALL) Pr. CIT Vs Surya Merchant Ltd  (2009) 317 ITD 249 (Del) CIT Vs Centimetres Electricals P. Ltd  (2009) 317 ITR 207 (Kar) CIT Vs ACE Multitaxes Systems P Ltd  (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) CIT Vs Jayant Patel  (2001) ITR 481(Mad) CIT Vs A.N, Arunachalam 8. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…igh Court held that the audit report filed before completion of assessment proceedings should have been considered by the Income tax officer. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has also expressed an identical view in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Surya Merchants Ltd (387 ITR 105) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the department, vide its order dated 10- 03-2017 in CC No.4955/2017. 102. By following above said decisions, we hold that the audit report filed by the assessee during the course of present assessment proceedings should be considered as due compliance with the requirements of sec. 10B(…