“Section 135(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 135Section 135(5)49 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 135(5) is MOIL Ltd. v. CIT (396 ITR 244), cited in 74 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 135(5)

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

396 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise an assessment where the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry, examined the details submitted by the assessee, and applied their mind to be satisfied about the admissibility of a claim.

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 602 · 2011 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Compensation received for a non-compete covenant or for not carrying on a specific business activity is a capital receipt and not liable to tax as business income.

CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.

372 ITR 310 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 solely on the grounds of 'inadequate enquiry' by the Assessing Officer. The AO's assessment order is presumed to be with application of mind, and a mere lack of detailed discussion does not automatically imply non-application of mind.

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

350 ITR 94 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A new undertaking is not deprived of its status as a separate and distinct entity merely because it is to a certain extent dependent on an existing unit, if the nature of the technology and mechanism of production warrants it.

West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd v. CIT

52 Taxmann.com 268 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT Mumbai, in the case of West Coast Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) concerning deductions under Section 80IA.

SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. v. DCIT

120 TTJ 711 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Steam is considered power, and its production qualifies for deductions under section 80-IA(4) even when used for captive consumption. The generation of steam is synonymous with the production of steam.

Judgments citing Section 135(5)

Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 342/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

stipulate that such contributions shall be other than the sums spent by the assessees in pursuance of CSR under section 135(5) of the Companies Act. 7. Learned AR placed reliance on FAQ No. 6 in the General Circular No. 01/2016 dated 12/01/2016 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Lastly ... company has reported eligible net profit u/s 135 of Companies Act, 2013 at Rs.100 crores. The minimum CSR contribution of 2% under Section 135(5) of the Act works out to be Rs. 2 crores. Situation 1 : The company has been spent the required minimum CSR contribution

Deloittee Tax Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

pIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 199Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80G

Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal to submit that that deduction under section 80G cannot be denied in respect of CSR expenditure incurred under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. He submitted that the Tribunal while allowing the deduction under section 80G, has also considered clauses (iiihk) & (iiihl ... section 80G(2) to hold that contribution made under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 other than to "Swachh Bharat Kosh" and "Clean Ganga Fund" shall be eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision, as relied

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rustomjee Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1585/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Supreme Buildestates Pvt Ltd, Madanganj- Kishangarh vs. DCIT Circle 2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 234BSection 37Section 80Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

same let us look in to the relevant provisions which we need to be taken in to consideration. 20. The provisions of Section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 read as under: "The Board of every company referred to in sub-section (1), shall ensure that the company spends ... company has reported eligible net profit u/s 135 of Companies Act, 2013 at Rs.100 crores. The minimum CSR contribution of 2% under Section 135(5) of the Act works out to be Rs. 2 crores. Situation 1 : The company has been spent the required minimum CSR contribution

Marsh Mclennan Global Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept. Nationl E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2452/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Marsh