TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by CPC Bangalore u/s 154 on 06-06-2020. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act despite non-satisfaction of conditions specified u/s.143(1)(a)(ii). 10. For that the Commissioner 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/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from E-filing portal showing the status of ROI filed 25 7 Date of filing form 10CCB electronically 26.05.2018 1.Screenshot from Income Tax Efiling portal 2. Form 10CCB filed electronically. 26-34 8 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 15-04-2019. The assessee preferred rectification against which separate intimation was issued on 08-06-2020 wherein this deduction was again denied. This order was under challenge before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of CPC primarily by 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 Allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab 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 t....