← All Phrases

“Section 7(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 7Section 7(2)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 7(2) is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), cited in 1,158 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 7(2)

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

Setty & Others vs. State of Karnataka (7) (1996) 1 SCC 345- Secretary Government of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu
4 SCC 720 · 2008 · Reported
145
citing judgments

The validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, is examined by the court.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

CIT v. Shivanand Electronics
209 ITR 63 · 1994 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming specified deductions, such as under Section 80J or 80-IA, is directory and not mandatory. Such an audit report can be filed at any time before the assessment is framed or completed under Section 143(1).

Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT
219 ITR 721 · 1996 · High Court
86
citing judgments

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.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported
75
citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
409 ITR 225 · 2018 · High Court
67
citing judgments

The beneficial provisions of Section 43B do not apply to sums covered by Section 36(1)(va), which are employee contributions to welfare funds. The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are distinct, meaning belated payment of employee contributions is not deductible under Section 43B, and only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) governs their deductibility.

Judgments citing Section 7(2)

Karuna Evam Shanti Vahini Foundation, Mumbai vs. Cti(Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1485/MUM/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (CIT - DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7(2)Section 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Karuna Evam Shanti Vahini Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1497/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhankaruna Evam Shanti Vahini Cit (Exemptions) Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, 12/A, Florida Apartment, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Mound Mary Road, Pedder Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400050. Pan : Aajck6283D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Geriatric Wellness Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1346/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godarageriatric Wellness Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Lokmanya Hospital, Mitramandal Vs. 484/6, Mitramandal Colony, Parvati, Pune – 411009 Pan : Aafcg8051M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2024 O R D E R Per R. K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S

ITO -Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pawan Gupta

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 200 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

assessment and reassessment could never be waived for the simple reason that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor 2009:DHC:1436-DB section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction