Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT

219 ITR 721High Court1996#1329 most cited

What is Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT authority for?

The requirement to furnish an auditor's report (e.g., under Section 80J(6A), 80-IA(7), or Form 10B/10IC) along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Such a report can be filed at a later stage, provided it is submitted before the completion of the assessment proceedings.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT · Section 80J(6A) · Section 80-IA(7) · Section 115BAA · auditor's report · filing audit report · directory vs mandatory · belated filing · before assessment completion · Form 10B

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 143(3)Section 44ABSection 11Section 11(2)Section 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 10b(8)section 115bbasection 80jsection 115basection 115baasection 10(20a)public servantcarry forward of lossessection 10(46)section 10b

Judgments citing Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT

C D O JAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2570/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 250

…should be held to have been met. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom), apart from the Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). The Calcutta High Court in the case in CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, is not able to produ…

RAJGOR AGRO LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2105/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Apr 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Addl./Joint Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance On The Ground That The Assessee Opted For New Tax Regime Under Section 115Baa Of The Act & Filed Form No. 10-Ic On 28.12.2024. Since Both The Return Of Income & Form No. 10-Ic Have Been Filed Belatedly, The Addl./Joint Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 72

…ision, an interpretation favourable to the assessee may be taken, especially when we are dealing with Statutory provisions aimed at giving some incentive to the assessee." 8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor`s report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessment proc…

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, 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)

…0J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion…

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being. CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay): Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion th…

VISHNU JANARDHAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 6602/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 254(1)

…verting to the merits of the case. 6. I find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj); Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 225 Taxman 79 (Guj) and Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that assessee could not file audit report along with return of income but file before completion of assessment by Assessing Officer. The assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80J. Similarly, Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bom) also held that Form-10B wa…

PRISTINE MEGA LOGISTICS PARK PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/s Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., CPC Bangalore, 3rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 PAN:AAGCP8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ashok Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been prefe…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…ld to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it i…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…ld to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it i…

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

…ld to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.” Thus, it i…

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

…80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arriv…

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

…80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arriv…

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

…80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In view of this long line on decisions of various 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arriv…

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

…80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the Page 5 of 7 provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct…

PIONEER E SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

…ate the assessee’s substantive right to the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. The relevant observation made by the Coordinate Bench is reproduced herein below: “8.1. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT reported in 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessme…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…timeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del.) • CIT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) • CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) • Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) • CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj.&Har.) • CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in “CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd (18 com 25 Mad)” was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in “CIT -Vs- G.M.Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd., 376 ITR 456”. Though the case arose out of non-fili…

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

….) of 2019, dated 22-4-2022); IV. Shardaben Education Trust v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 2312 (Ahd.) of 2018, dated 16-11-2022); V. CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184/221 Taxman 43 (Mag.) (Guj) VI. Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Gul): VII. CIT v. Mayur Foundation [2005] 274 TTR 562 (Guj): VIII. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [19931 201 ITR 325 (G.): IX. CII v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016171 taxmann.com 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…

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

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

….) of 2019, dated 22-4-2022); IV. Shardaben Education Trust v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 2312 (Ahd.) of 2018, dated 16-11-2022); V. CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184/221 Taxman 43 (Mag.) (Guj) VI. Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Gul): VII. CIT v. Mayur Foundation [2005] 274 TTR 562 (Guj): VIII. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [19931 201 ITR 325 (G.): IX. CII v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016171 taxmann.com 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…

GURUDWARA SHRI GURU SINGH SABHA,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

…And Another Vs. Ace Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 207(Karnataka). That was also the view of the Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), and Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT-(1996) 219 ITR 721 and Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 10. In the instant case, the Form 10B was filed on 30.03.2021 and the return of income was processed on 30.11.2021. We find that the assessee had obtained audit report in Form 10B before filing return of income, however filed the same belatedly but before c…

SHRI POORNIMA ENTERTAINMENTS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Poornima Entertainments Llp, Flat No. A-304, Sdc Gateway, Plot No. B-1-2, Ghiya Marg Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016 Pan No.: Aeafs 8967C ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…688 (Raj) 3. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Allahabad High Court Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) 4. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 Madras High Court taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) 5. Zenith Processing Mills V. CIT [1996] Gujarat High Court 219 ITR 721 (Gujarat) 6. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 75 Bombay High Court Taxman 93 (Bom.) 7. Ambience Holiday Resorts Ltd., ITA ITAT Delhi No. 1820/Del/2020 8. Nitesh Kumar J. Shah ITA No. ITAT Ahmedabad 430/Ahd/2022 9. Surendra Steels Private Limited ITA ITAT Kolkata No. 78/Kol/2022 10. Dunichand Khitri Raja ITA No. ITAT Bangalore 315/Bang/2023 11. RSM Sa…

BHAGWAN PRECISION,ROHTAK vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…0J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. 9 We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion tha…

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5