← All Phrases

“Section 108(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 108Section 108(8)13 judgments

NTT MANAGED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR
Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

Wipro Ltd. v. PCIT [2022] without appreciating that the said ruling pertained to a completely different factual matrix involving a statutory declaration undar section 108(8), which is distinguishable from Form 10DA 3 ITA.No.1165/Hyd./2025 required under section 80JJAA of the IT Act. Hence, the reliance placed ... taking a contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 108 (8) of the IT Act on non-compliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section

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

Court held that on a plain reading of section 10B(8) of the Act, it is clear that where assessee claimed benefit under section 108(8) by furnishing declaration in revised return much after due date prescribed under section 139(1), same was to be denied as requirement of furnishing

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

Court held that on a plain reading of section 10B(8) of the Act, it is clear that where assessee claimed benefit under section 108(8) by furnishing declaration in revised return much after due date prescribed under section 139(1), same was to be denied as requirement of furnishing

SAHYADRI FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 951/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.951/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “ (All The Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-6 Delhi Erred In Law & Fact In Upholding Disallowance U/S Boib(114) Amounting To Rs.8,73,57,770 Made By Learned Dcit, Cpc (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 801BSection 80I

case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section

AKRY ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1). Therefore, claiming benefit under section 108(8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B(8) in the revised return of income which was much after the due date of filing ... before the due date of filling the original return of income under section 139(1). As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 108(8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 1 \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nDELHI “I” BENCH: NEW

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI “I” BENCH: NEW

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI

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

contrary to the unambiguous language contained in section 10B(8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under section 108(8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing ... entitled to the benefit under section 10B(8) of the IT Act on non- compliance of the twin conditions as provided under section 108(8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section

ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

contrary to the unambiguous language contained in section 10B(8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under section 108(8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing ... entitled to the benefit under section 10B(8) of the IT Act on non- compliance of the twin conditions as provided under section 108(8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall