Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT

219 ITR 721High Court1996#1320 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 366,339 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

Yuva Chintana Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

…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…

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

…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 (P) form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be ion permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessm…

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

…t report for claiming deduction u/s.80J is directory and not mandatory. The Hon’ble High Court held an audit report produced before the appellate authority is sufficient compliance with section 80J. Similarly, the Gujarat HC in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (219 ITR 721) while considering a case where audit report for claiming of deduction u/s.80J was not filed before the AO but at the time of revisionary proceedings before the CIT u/s.263 of the Act, the audit report was produced and the Hon’ble High Court held furnishing of audit report before the CIT was sufficient compliance. Also, the Chennai ITAT in Ashok…

Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: of Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)

…CIT(A). Therefore, considering the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj), Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 225 Taxman 70 (Guj) and Zenith Processing Mills vs CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) that uploading of audit report is a procedural provision and should not be construed as mandatory, hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the fact and allow appropriate relief to the assessee by following the aforesaid deci…

General Industrial Contros Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…No.19/2023 the Delay is condoned by CBDT. 10.1 The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aprameyha Engineering Ltd., Vs. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 740 has held as under : “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 ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] 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 c…

Swami Satyaprakashnand Shiv Mandir Trust, Udham Singh Nagar vs. AO (Exemption), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH “DB”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand PIN: 263148 PAN No. AANTS6873L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Department by: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.04.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.04.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the appel…

Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80G(5)

…CIT(A). Therefore, considering the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj), Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 225 Taxman 70 (Guj) and Zenith Processing Mills vs CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) that uploading of audit report is a procedural provision and should not be construed as mandatory, hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the fact and allow appropriate relief to the assessee by following the aforesaid deci…

Odisha Sports Development and Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…exemptionunder s. 11 claimed by the assessee- Shardaben Education Trust vs. ITO (ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It w…

Odisha Sports Development and Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Jeypore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…exemptionunder s. 11 claimed by the assessee- Shardaben Education Trust vs. ITO (ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It w…

Odisha Sports Development Andpromotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…exemptionunder s. 11 claimed by the assessee- Shardaben Education Trust vs. ITO (ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It w…

Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee Trust, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…T -Vs-Contimeters 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 Taxmann.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-fil…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T.…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T.…

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

…ave been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from 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. M/s.Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr.T.Ravikumar, the…

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 782/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

…owed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 456/Ahd/2024 dated 11-06-2024 wherein it is held as follows:- “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…

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 781/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

…owed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 456/Ahd/2024 dated 11-06-2024 wherein it is held as follows:- “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…

Priya Blue Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 92E

…ir Religious & Chariable Trust – 205 ITD 150 (Ahd) - Association of Indian Panelboard Mfg. – TA 655 of 2022 (Guj) - CIT vs. Mayur Foundation – 274 ITR 562 (Guj) - CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal P. Ltd. – 221 Taxman 43 (Guj) - Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT – 219 ITR 721 (Guj) 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that penalty under Section 271BA of the Act cannot be levied merely for a technical default. Penalty is unwarranted in view of reasonable cause as per Section 273B of the Act. The assessee was under a bonafide impression and inadvertently due to oversight, audit report could not be filed in the previous year…

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

…imeters 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 FIR 63 (Born.)  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.) 4. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, we note that the return was filed by the assessee on 05.11.…

Bansal Corelam Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshbansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, C-167, Mp Enclave, Maurya Ward-32(3), Enclave, Pitampura, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcb7341M

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 72

…favourable to the assessee may be taken, especially when we are Bansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd 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…

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

…upon the following decisions :- 1) KGY Glass Industries (P) Limited (Tax Appeal No.722 of 2023) (Guj.) 2) Aurangabad Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Caourt) 2010 SCC Online SC 1277. 3) Medicaps Limited, 323 ITR 554 (Madhya Pradesh) 4) Zenith Processing Mills, 219 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…