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

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

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

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-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

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

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

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

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

disallowance was rightly made by the CPC. Subsequently, the Ld. DR has placed on record several decisions of the Hon’ble co-ordinate Benches whereby it has been held that even in case of belated filing of Form 10CCB but before completion of assessment, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In particular reliance

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation