WALKER CHANDIOK & CO.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of electricity expenses and the direction regarding rent admissibility. It remanded the issue of interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and dismissed the disallowance of depreciation on cars.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm challenged disallowances on electricity expenses, interest paid to a partner, and depreciation on cars. The Tribunal noted that these issues were decided in a previous assessment year for the same assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowances on electricity expenses, interest to partner, and depreciation on cars are justified. Whether the CIT(A) can issue directions on issues not before him.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Mukesh K. Sah v. ITO3 citing92 ITD 349 · ITAT
Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu
In view of the above findings reached by this Tribunal in the similar facts and circumstances, and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench referred to above, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is sent back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding this issue in the light of our decision given in appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and ground No. 4 of the assessee is dismissed.
By way of ground No. 2, the assessee has also challenged the direction of the ld. CIT(A) issued to the Assessing Officer to look into the admissibility of rent paid by assessee to M/s. Bhakru & Associates. The contention of the assessee has been that on this issue neither the Assessing Officer made any disallowance in the assessment order nor has the assessee raised this issue in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, this issue having not been emerged out of the assessment order, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified to given such a direction which is beyond the subject matter of appeal before him. No counter submissions are made on behalf of the Revenue to discard the submissions made by the assessee. More so, this issue has also been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the same set of facts and circumstances in its appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, in view of which, we do not think it justified to sustain such directions of the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of appeal deserves to be allowed.
More judgments on Section 40(b)
- M/S Shree Shakuntala Industries, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1396/JPR/2025[2002-03]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2002-03
- Morlidhar B Vamdote, Bardoli vs ITO, Ward-1, BardoliITA 1174/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- M/S Prashant Fruit Company, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1557/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Prashant Fruit Company, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1549/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Super Fin Services, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), AhmedabadITA 1389/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026