Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.48 seconds)
Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax cites

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd.,, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata, ... on 29 July, 2022

6.1. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Magnum Exports (P) Ltd. [262 I.T.R. 10 (Cal)], Murli Export House & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (supra). We further observe that the ld. C.I.T.(A) apart from relying on several judicial pronouncements has also allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s.80- IB for the assessment years under consideration on identical facts and situation by following the order of I.T.A.T. in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998- 3 99 to 2000-01 vide ITA Nos. 1791 to 1793/Kol/2007. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, we find that the common issue in these appeals before us is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court referred to above. It is an admitted position that preparation of account is mandatory, but filing of the same is a procedural matter. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is that the benefit of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act is available where the audit report has been filed before the completion of the assessment, inasmuch as filing of audit report in Form No.10CCB is directory in nature and not mandatory. In this case, the assessee did not enclose the audit report in Form No.10CCB along with the returns of income, but filed the same during assessment proceedings before the A.O., i.e. before the completion of assessments. 6.2. Further, the provisions of Sec. 80-IB of the Act speak about deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Murali Export House And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 August, 1995

6.1. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Magnum Exports (P) Ltd. [262 I.T.R. 10 (Cal)], Murli Export House & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (supra). We further observe that the ld. C.I.T.(A) apart from relying on several judicial pronouncements has also allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s.80- IB for the assessment years under consideration on identical facts and situation by following the order of I.T.A.T. in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998- 3 99 to 2000-01 vide ITA Nos. 1791 to 1793/Kol/2007. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, we find that the common issue in these appeals before us is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court referred to above. It is an admitted position that preparation of account is mandatory, but filing of the same is a procedural matter. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is that the benefit of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act is available where the audit report has been filed before the completion of the assessment, inasmuch as filing of audit report in Form No.10CCB is directory in nature and not mandatory. In this case, the assessee did not enclose the audit report in Form No.10CCB along with the returns of income, but filed the same during assessment proceedings before the A.O., i.e. before the completion of assessments. 6.2. Further, the provisions of Sec. 80-IB of the Act speak about deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 32 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Panama Chemicals Works on 15 September, 2000

4. The ld. C.I.T.(A) considering the fact that the assessee filed the audit report in Form-10CCB before finalizing the assessment and also considering the decisions of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panama Chemicals Works [292 ITR 147], Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [201 ITR 325], Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics [209 ITR 63] and order of I.T.A.T., 'A' Bench, Kolkata in the case of ACIT vs. Himgiri Casting Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.338 & 339/Kol/2008, order dated 5/6/2009] has held that the filing of audit report with the return is not mandatory, but is directory in nature. The ld. C.I.T.(A) has also stated that the initial claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act was for assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1791 to 1793 (Kol)/2007, while deciding the appeals for assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80-IB of the Act. The ld. C.I.T.(A) by following the earlier order of the Tribunal has allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s. 80-IB of the Act. Hence the department is in appeals for all the three assessment years under consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Magnum Export (P) Ltd. on 29 April, 2003

6.1. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Magnum Exports (P) Ltd. [262 I.T.R. 10 (Cal)], Murli Export House & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (supra). We further observe that the ld. C.I.T.(A) apart from relying on several judicial pronouncements has also allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s.80- IB for the assessment years under consideration on identical facts and situation by following the order of I.T.A.T. in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998- 3 99 to 2000-01 vide ITA Nos. 1791 to 1793/Kol/2007. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, we find that the common issue in these appeals before us is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court referred to above. It is an admitted position that preparation of account is mandatory, but filing of the same is a procedural matter. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is that the benefit of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act is available where the audit report has been filed before the completion of the assessment, inasmuch as filing of audit report in Form No.10CCB is directory in nature and not mandatory. In this case, the assessee did not enclose the audit report in Form No.10CCB along with the returns of income, but filed the same during assessment proceedings before the A.O., i.e. before the completion of assessments. 6.2. Further, the provisions of Sec. 80-IB of the Act speak about deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 20 - D K Seth - Full Document
1