UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance before learned first appellate authority, however, he did not succeed. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, for manufacturing the finished products the assessee has to import raw materials from other States. He submitted, in course of such import, when the raw materials enter the boundaries of Himachal Pradesh, wherein the eligible unit has been established, entry

UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance before learned first appellate authority, however, he did not succeed. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, for manufacturing the finished products the assessee has to import raw materials from other States. He submitted, in course of such import, when the raw materials enter the boundaries of Himachal Pradesh, wherein the eligible unit has been established, entry

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

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

80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

SANJAY KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

disallowed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 18 taxmann.com 25 and this decision was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. 71 taxmann.com

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

80J(6A)\nwhich are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7),\nwe feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct\nconclusion that the requirement of filing the Audit\nReport along with the return is not mandatory but\ndirectory and that if the Audit Report is filed at any\ntime before the framing of the assessment, the\nrequirement

STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly with relief as\nallowed above

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member\Nand\Nshri Anubhav Sharma\N\Nita No.4259/Del/2025\N[Assessment Year: 2023-24]\N\Nstar Wire (India) Vidyut\Nprivate Limited,\N8C/6 Wea, 3Rd Floor, Abdul\Naziz Road, Karol Bagh,\Ndelhi-110005\Npan-Aaccp9042J\Nappellant\N\Nappellant By\Nshri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv.\Nshri Abmyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv.\Nshri Sohum Dua, Adv.\N\Nrespondent By\Nshri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N03.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N17.09.2025\N\Ndeputy Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-22(2),\Nvs E-2 Block, S.P. Mukherjee Civic\Ncentre, Minto Road,\Nnew Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\Norder\N\Nper Anubhav Sharma, Jm,\N\Nthis Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated\N02.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') In Appeal\Nno.Nfac/202-23/10468552 Arising Out Of Order Of The Assessing Officer\Ndated 11.03.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2023-24.\N\N2.\Nthe Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income At\Nrs.Nil After Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act. The Case Was Selected\Nfor Scrutiny & During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed\Nthat The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act However Failed To\Nfulfil The Condition Required To Claim Deduction In The Form Of Filing Form\N10Ccb Which Should Be Filed Before Specified Date Which Was 30.09.2023.\Nhowever, This Form Was Filed On 23.10.2023. Therefore, The Disallowance U/S\N80Ia Of Rs.4,40,03,570/- Was Made.\N\N2.

disallowing the entire claim of Business Promotion\nExpenses and Travelling Expenses amounting to\nRs.91,41,533/- on the basis of alleged discrepancy in\ninvoices amounting to approximately Rs.39,000/-\n\n6. That, without prejudice to the above, the Business\nPromotion Expenses and Travelling Expenses incurred is\nwell justified for the main reason that the entire sale is made\nto State

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed the deductions under Section 80-IA of the Act. The appeal filed by the Assessee against the said order was allowed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 24th March, 2005. Against the said order, ITA No. 2668/Del/2005 was filed by the Revenue before the ITAT. In the said appeal for AY 2001-02, the Assessee also filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LIMITED

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed the deductions under Section 80-IA of the Act. The appeal filed by the Assessee against the said order was allowed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 24th March, 2005. Against the said order, ITA No. 2668/Del/2005 was filed by the Revenue before the ITAT. In the said appeal for AY 2001-02, the Assessee also filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed the deductions under Section 80-IA of the Act. The appeal filed by the Assessee against the said order was allowed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 24th March, 2005. Against the said order, ITA No. 2668/Del/2005 was filed by the Revenue before the ITAT. In the said appeal for AY 2001-02, the Assessee also filed

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

disallowed by stating that\nprocessing fee is not derived from LT\nfinancing. Issue pending in the present\nappeal.\ni\ne\n202021\n554198049\n0\nNo addition on said issue by Ld. AO in the\nAssessment Order passed dated 28.09.2022\nt\n202122\n641301896.5\n0\nNo addition on said issue by Ld. AO in the\nAssessment Order passed dated 26.12.2022\n13\nITA Nos.319

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LT

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

CIT vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers