Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (2) TMI 1108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: - 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the intimation u/s.143(1) is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying the deduction claimed u/s.80IA amounting to Rs.57,98,680/- for the reason that Form 10CCB was not filed electronically along with return of income filed u/s.139(1). 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that Form 10CCB was filed as an attachment alon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating on the disallowance of a sum of Rs.33,898/- being belated remittance of employee's contribution to provident fund u/s.36(1)(va). 11. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had already disallowed the belated remittance of employee's contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.33,898/- while computing the income under the head Profits and Gains from Business or Profession. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said disallowance of Rs.33,898/- in the intimation passed u/s.143(1) would amount to double disallowance of the same amount as the same had already been disal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Date of receipt of intimation u/s.143(1) 15.04.2019 Copy of intimation u/s.143(1) 35-40 9 Date of filing of Rectification u/s.154 29.05.2020 1.Screenshot from Income Tax E filing portal 2. Form 10CCB filed electronically. 41 In support of claim, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries P. Ltd. (71 Taxmann.com 35); the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. AKS Alloys P. Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 25) as followed by Chennai Tribunal in Madudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Spinning Mills Vs. DCIT (2023) 4 TMI 287 - ITAT, Chennai; Roopa Steam Calendering Works Vs. DCIT (ITA No.284/Chny/2022) and Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020). The copies of decisions have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs M/s. Wipro Limited (supra). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We find that this issue is squarely covered in assessee's favor by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries P. Ltd. (71 Taxmann.com 35). The Hon'ble Court affirmed the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys P. Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 25). In the decision of AKS Alloys P. Ltd., it was held by jurisdictional High Court as under:- 5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. Similar favorable view has been taken by Tribunal in other decisions as referred to by Ld. AR which has already been mentioned in preceding para-2. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs M/s. Wipro Limited (supra) has already been considered by Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates