Saffire Garments v. ITO

140 ITD 6Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#6174 most cited

What is Saffire Garments v. ITO authority for?

Filing of income tax return within the time prescribed under section 139(1) is mandatory to claim deductions under sections like 10A and 80IB(10).

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Saffire Garments v. ITO · section 139(1) · section 10A · section 80IB(10) · mandatory time limit · return filing · deduction eligibility · ITAT Rajkot Special Bench

Also reported as

151 TTJ 114

Issues it is cited on

section 80acsection 80asection 10asection 139(4)section 234asection 234section 10section 139(1)section 139section 23section 80previous year

Judgments citing Saffire Garments v. ITO

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

…e who does not furnish a return of income on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.”; 10.5 It is important to note that the AO in his order has made reference to the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s Saffire Garments Vs. ITO 151 TTJ 114 wherein it was provided that the deduction cannot be claimed under section 10A of the Act if the return of income has not been filed within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act. But undeniably the assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that no reference can be made to the o…

The N.D.D. P and T E.C.C Society Ltd., Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 611/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.611/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Nddp & Tec Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd, Ward-1 Nellore. Nellore. Pan:Aactt5322J (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri M. Chandra Mouleswara निर्धारितीती द्वारा Rao, C.A /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandra MouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

…f Prakash Natth Khanna v CIT [2014] 135 Taxman 327 (SC)/[2014] 266 ITR 1(SC)/[2014] 187 CTR 97 (SC) • The ITAT Rajkot Bench (SPECIAL BENCH) in the case of Saffire Garments v ITO [2012] 28 taxmann.com 27 (Rajkot) (SB)/[2012] 20 ITR(T) 623 (Rajkot) (SB)/[2013] 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot)(SB)/[2013] 151 TTJ 114 (Rajkot) (SB) • The ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Dwarakadas G. Panchmatiya v ACIT 2015] 57 taxmann.com 2 (Mumbai)/[2015] 44 ITR(T) 74 (Mumbai)/[2015] 153 ITD 625 (Rajkot)/[2015] 172 TTJ 70 (Mumbai)) 6.0 As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the A.O. is hereby confirmed.” 8. Agg…

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.166 & 167/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10/6, Lavelle Road, of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), PAN: AAACH 7551A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Deepesh Wagle, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Me…

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.166 & 167/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10/6, Lavelle Road, of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), PAN: AAACH 7551A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Deepesh Wagle, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Me…

Lekha Pariksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Thane vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

ITA 268/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

Section 10BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…to add other section i.e. 139(4) of the Act as is requested by the ld. AR before us, since it may amount to dilution of the object of the section. It is further noted by us that the Special Bench of Rajkot Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments reported in 140 ITD 6 had taken a similar view wherein it has been opined that filing of return within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act is mandatory to claim the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Infact similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd reported in 370 ITR 305 (Cal).…

The DCIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

…the assessee did not file rectification of the LOP by the Board of Approval which was pre-requisite condition to claim deduction u/s.10B as per CBDT’s instruction No.2/2009 dated 09.03.2009 and the decision of tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments vs ITO (151 TTJ 114). 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 2.1 The Revenue has raised the additional ground of appeal as detail…

Right Tight Fastners Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-11 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3101/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Right Tight Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(1)(1) 18-A/31, Manish Kaveri, Four Aayakar R. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bunglows, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande
Section 119(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 30ASection 80Section 80ASection 80ISection 8O

…ions. The above interpretation has been supported by the views of Judiciaries in following various cases. 5. Thereafter, the A.O. placed reliance upon several case laws including ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of M/s. Saffire Garments vs. ITO [2013] 140 ITD 6. 6. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). 4 Right Tight Fastners Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 7. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has submitted a petition to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the return for A.Y. 2012-13. The petition has sought to menti…

Uma Developers, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun kumar Singh
Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…epartmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 370 ITA 305 (Cal.); ii) Umeshchandra Dalakoti v/s ACIT, ITA no.07/2012, dated 27.08.2012 (U.K. HC); and iii) M/s. Saffire Garments v/s ITO [2013] 140 ITD 6. 7. In rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the decision in case of Dilip Kumar & Co. & Ors. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was interpreting a exemption notification. He submitted, there is 6 Uma Developers no change in situation even now as regards interpretatio…

M/S. Himalya International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…hich is in violation of section 80A(5), he has upheld the denial of the deduction made by the AO. While coming to the conclusion he has discussed various judgments in the impugned order especially the judgment of Special Bench in the case of Saffire Garments 140 ITD 6; and Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Shelcon Properties (P.) Ltd. (2014) 44 taxmann.com 170. But after referring to these judgments, he noted that these judgments may not apply completely, because here in this case assessee has filed its return of income u/s 139(1), but in that return he has not made any claim for deduction u/s 80IC whi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya International Ltd., Himachal Pradesh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…hich is in violation of section 80A(5), he has upheld the denial of the deduction made by the AO. While coming to the conclusion he has discussed various judgments in the impugned order especially the judgment of Special Bench in the case of Saffire Garments 140 ITD 6; and Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Shelcon Properties (P.) Ltd. (2014) 44 taxmann.com 170. But after referring to these judgments, he noted that these judgments may not apply completely, because here in this case assessee has filed its return of income u/s 139(1), but in that return he has not made any claim for deduction u/s 80IC whi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya International Ltd., Himachal Pradesh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3838/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…hich is in violation of section 80A(5), he has upheld the denial of the deduction made by the AO. While coming to the conclusion he has discussed various judgments in the impugned order especially the judgment of Special Bench in the case of Saffire Garments 140 ITD 6; and Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Shelcon Properties (P.) Ltd. (2014) 44 taxmann.com 170. But after referring to these judgments, he noted that these judgments may not apply completely, because here in this case assessee has filed its return of income u/s 139(1), but in that return he has not made any claim for deduction u/s 80IC whi…

M/S Padm Services, Ranipur vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, we dispose off the appeal of the assessee dismissing ground

ITA 5532/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Padm Services, Vs. Ito, Plot No. 27, Sector-1B, Iie Sidcul, Ward-2, Ranipur, Haridwar Pan:Aajfp4857F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Shankarsh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 80ASection 80I

…layed return deduction under specified section CBDT alone can consider the claim of the assessee to condone the delay, therefore, apparently the deduction is not eligible if the return is not filed in time. The Special Bench in case of Saffire Garments Vs ITO 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot) (Special Bench) has also decided similar issue. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. Vs. Union of India 80 Taxmann.com 327 has also decided the similar issue with respect to provisions of section 80A(5) with respect to deduction u/s 10A, 10AA, 10B and section 10BA of the Act. In view of this, w…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

…llowed without filing the mandatory form 56F or 56G by the assessee alongwith return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act has been considered and decided by the Rajkot Special Bench Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments Versus Income-tax Officer, 140 ITD 6 (SB)(Raj), wherein, it has been held as under: Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 “11. The 1st question raised before us is this as to whether this proviso to Section 10A(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or merely directory. In order to decide this issue, we feel that we have to consider the whole scheme of the Act. The assessee is required…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers, Mumbai

ITA 4527/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…80IB(10). Thus, in absence of compliance of this condition, the assessee should not be granted the benefit of the deduction. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgement of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments vs ITO 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot)(SB). 13. We have gone through the orders passed by both the sides and also judgements placed before us. Before deciding this appeal on merits of the issue raised, we find it necessary to first decide the preliminary issue. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that in this case the due date for filing of retu…

D.C.I.T. 24(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers, Mumbai

ITA 7246/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…80IB(10). Thus, in absence of compliance of this condition, the assessee should not be granted the benefit of the deduction. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgement of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments vs ITO 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot)(SB). 13. We have gone through the orders passed by both the sides and also judgements placed before us. Before deciding this appeal on merits of the issue raised, we find it necessary to first decide the preliminary issue. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that in this case the due date for filing of retu…

Shree M.T.K.Textiles Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tuticorin

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Shree M.T.K. Textiles Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Circle – 1, #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Tuticorin. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aahcs 2941 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(c)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the judicial decisions and application pending before the CBDT and overlooked the co-ordinate Bench decision and relied on the Special Bench decision of Rajkot Bench in the case of Saffire Garments v. ITO (151 TTJ 114) where held that the provisions of Section 10A(1A) of the Act in the case of deduction is mandatory and not directory by overruling the decisions of Chennai and Delhi Tribunals and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in denying deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act and dismissed the 5 I.T.A. No.403/Mds/16 appeal of the assessee. Ag…

M/S Pooja Reality Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 234Section 80ASection 80ISection 80OSection 86

…6. The ld. DR submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Dr. K. Balaraman in ITA No.1689/Bang/2013 dated 17.10.2014 and also the order of the Rajkot Special Bench in the case of Saffire Garments v. ITO, 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot)(SB) as well as the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Avasarala Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.951 to 954/Bng/2011 dated 8.3.2013. Page 5 of 8 7. The contention of the revenue was strongly refuted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee with the submission that assessee has been contending that he has entered int…

Chella Software Pvt Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

ITA 2081/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tances beyond the control. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the judicial decisions and evidence but overlooked the Co-ordinate Bench decision and relied on the Special Bench decision of Rajkot Bench in case of Saffire Garments vs. ITO 151 TTJ 114 where held that the provisions of Sec. 10A(1A) of the Act in the case of deduction is mandatory and not directory by overruling the decisions of Chennai and Delhi Tribunals and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in denying deduction u/s.10A of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Commission…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Megha Fruit Processing Pvt. Ltd., Puttur

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 613/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Nandini Das, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Pratibha, R., Advocate
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80ISection 8O

…4 of 7 of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s.80-IB(11A) of the Act claimed by the Assessee. 7. At the time of hearing the learned DR brought to our notice that a Special Bench of the ITAT, Rajkot Bench, in the case of Saffire Garments Vs. ITO (2013) 140 ITD 6 (Rajkot)(SB) had an occasion to examine identical provisions such as Sec.80AC viz., proviso to Sec.10A(1A) of the Act, as to whether the same were directory or mandatory. The provisions of Sec.10A(1A) of the Act are as follows: "[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the deduction, in computing the total income of an undert…

Saffire Garments v. ITO (140 ITD 6) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax