Lakshmi Energy & Foods Ltd., Chandigarh vs Assessee on 29 January, 2013
Hon'ble J & K
High Court in case of CIT Vs. Trehan Enterprises, (supra) held as
under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.85 seconds)Documents citing
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Trehan Enterprises on 9 August, 1999
Harsha Bhogle vs Assessing Officer on 27 May, 2002
18. The learned counsel argued that even if the certificate is filed before the CIT(A) in case of failure on the part of the assessee to file it before the Assessing Officer, the assessee is entitled to special deduction. He referred to the decision of the J&K High Court in the case of CIT v. Trehan Enterprises 248 ITR 333 to support his contention. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court held that even in case of failure of the assessee to furnish requisite certificate under Section 80J and under Section 80HH before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) is competent to accept certificate and consider whether the assessee was entitled to special deduction. Regarding condo nation, he invited our attention to the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bhartiya Engg. Corporation (P. )
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs B.L. Murarka on 18 April, 2001
In a recent judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in CIT v. Trehan Enterprises [2001] 248 ITR 333, it has been held that even if the audit report is not furnished along with the return during the course of assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer but it is produced in the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have treated the requirements to have been met and then framed the assessment or remitted the case back to the Income-tax Officer to proceed in accordance with law.
Zest Aromas Pvt. Ltd.,, Baroda vs Assessee on 2 January, 2012
(v) Even if the audit report is not filed along with the return of
income but it is made available to the Assessing Officer before
completion of assessment, the benefit under section 80-IA or 80-IB
cannot be denied - CIT v. Trehan Enterprises [2000] 108 Taxman 189
(J&K), CIT v. Panama Chemical Works [2000] 245ITR 684 (MP),
Amber Sales Mfg. Corpn. v. ITO [1984] 19 TTJ (Chd.)
Manju Kapoor Dalmia, New Delhi vs Assessee
4. Learned AR submitted that in the case of CIT vs. Trehan Enterprises 248
ITR 333 (J&K), Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court held as under :-
Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax
14. Before the CIT(A), the learned AR for the assessee submitted the
copy of report in form No.10CCB in connection with the claim of
deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act. The CIT(A) repl ying on series of
decisions, in turn relied upon by the learned AR for the assessee held that
the requirement of filing the audit report were directory provision and if
the same was filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim was
allowable. It was further held by the CIT(A) that the appellate proceeding
before him were continuation of the assessment proceedings and the
10
powers of CIT(A) were co-extensive to that of the Assessing Officer.
Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High
Court in CIT Vs. Trehan Enterprises [248 ITR 333 (J &K)] wherein it was
held that the requirement of filing audit report u/s 80 IB of the Act was
met with, if the same was filed before the C IT(A), though not filed during
the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of deduction u/s 80 IB of
the Act was allowed. The Revenue is aggrieved by the admission of the
said evidence furnished before the C IT(A) and as such plea of violation of
the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.
Arun Bhagwat Patil, Nashik vs Assessee on 15 September, 2014
Therefore, considering the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the present case, and in the background the legal position
enunciated by the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Trehan
Enterprises (supra) as also by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of
Jayant Patel (supra), it has to be held that the action of the assessee in
furnishing the requisite report in Form No.10CCB before the CIT(A), and which
was available for verification by the Assessing Officer in the course of remand
proceedings conducted by the CIT(A), complies with the requirement of filing
the prescribed report for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore,
we find that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act
pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 is reasonable and deserves to be
allowed.
The Scientific Educational ... vs Assessee on 24 September, 2014
and CIT vs.
Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust, reported in 230 ITR 714 (MP), CIT vs.
Trehan Enterprises reported in 248 ITR 333 (J&K) held that the requirement in
question was merely directory and not mandatory. In any event all the details
and audit report in some other form were already before the AO. We uphold
this finding of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that he has the
power to admit audit report in form no.10B as in this case the Ld.AO has failed
to bring to the notice of the assessee that there was a difficulty in the audit
report filed in Form 10BB before him. In coming to this conclusion we draw
strength from the following case laws.
Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs Assessee on 30 June, 2015
In a case
where the assessee failed to submit audit report in support of claim for
deduction under sections SOHH and SOJ during the course of assessment
proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court in CIT Vs. Trehan Enterprises [2001] 24e
ITR 333 /[2000] 108 Taxman 189 (J&K) held that when such report was filed
before the Id. CIT(A), it was necessary for him either to allow deduction or send
the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of
such report. It, therefore, transpires that noncompliance of directory
requirement does not make the action as invalid. As soon as such requirement
is fulfilled, the deficiency stands removed and the action is validated. It can
Page 7 of 12
8
Shankarlal P. Mali &
Group Companies.