29 of the Rules. In R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons. v. CIT

95 ITR 109High Court1974#5413 most cited

What is 29 of the Rules. In R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons. v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has broad discretion to admit or reject documents at the appellate stage. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, and if documents are relevant to the issue at hand, the Tribunal can admit them, consider them, or remit the matter to lower authorities.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v. CIT · 95 ITR 109 · ITAT Rules Rule 29 · admission of additional evidence · appellate stage · relevant documents · discretion of Tribunal

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1908 - Order XLISection 1908: Order 41 Rule 27Section 1961 - Section 40A(2)Section 1961: Section 80-IA(10)Section 1963 - Rule 29Section 1963: Rule 29Section 68

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencedocumentinterestindia

Judgments citing 29 of the Rules. In R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons. v. CIT

GOLDEN REALTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(3), MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1770/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankargolden Realty V/S. Income Tax Officer– 19(1)(3), 617, 6Th Floor, Tardeo Air बनाम 220, 2Nd Floor, Matru Condition Market, Tardeo Mandir, Tardeo Road, Road, Mumbai – 400 034, Mumbai – 400 007, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifg8857D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ing the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner to take additional evidence on lines indicated in its order and on the basis of such additional evidence to decide those appeals. 5.1 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of R. S. S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 109 examining the scope of the powers of the Tribunal under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules held that the Tribunal has got a wide discretion to admit or reject documents at the stage of appeal but such discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner and that if the Tribunal found that the documents filed are quite relevant for the purpose of deciding…

LUMINOUS TELEINFRA LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6997/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 80

…ee placed strong reliance on the decisions of the following High Court cases: i) CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia, [1983] 15 Taxman 345 (MP) ii) Anaikar Trades &Estates (P). Ltd v. CIT, [1991] 56 Taxman 170 (Mad) iii) R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v . CIT, [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) iv) CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd 351 ITR 57 (Del) 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the segmental financial statement produced as additional evidence along with the present application is necessary and pertinent for adjudication of the issue of production of ordinary profits u/s 80-IA(10) of the Act from sale of goods…

LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6996/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 40A(2)

…ssee placed strong reliance on the decisions of the following High Court cases: i) CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia, [1983] 15 Taxman 345 (MP) ii) Anaikar Trades &Estates (P). Ltd v. CIT, [1991] 56 Taxman 170 (Mad) iii) R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v . CIT, [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) iv) CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd 351 ITR 57 (Del) 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the segmental financial statement produced as additional evidence along with the present application is necessary and pertinent for adjudication as the internal TNMM method followed by the assessee was rejected merely on the ground that…

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…hi High Court relied upon the following case while deciding the above said case:- • Analkar Trades and Estates (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 313 (Mad.) • R. Dalmia Vs. CIt [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Delhi) • R.S.S.. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons V. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) • ITO V. B.N. Bhattachayra [ 1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal.) (iv) Decision of ITAT, Delhi ‘I’ Bench in the case of UOP LIC Vs. Additional Director of Income reported in 108 ITD 186 in which it was held that the additional evidence should be admitted. If it to may pronounce the judgment but all for any other substantiate cause and in this case, th…

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…hi High Court relied upon the following case while deciding the above said case:- • Analkar Trades and Estates (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 313 (Mad.) • R. Dalmia Vs. CIt [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Delhi) • R.S.S.. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons V. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) • ITO V. B.N. Bhattachayra [ 1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal.) (iv) Decision of ITAT, Delhi ‘I’ Bench in the case of UOP LIC Vs. Additional Director of Income reported in 108 ITD 186 in which it was held that the additional evidence should be admitted. If it to may pronounce the judgment but all for any other substantiate cause and in this case, th…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6874/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6873/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6872/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6871/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6870/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6869/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6868/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6867/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6866/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6865/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ass orders or • For any substantial cause or • Where the Income Tax authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee 54. In the present case, none of the three conditions are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in RSSS Pillai and Sons 95 ITR 109 held that the Tribunal finds that the evidence adduced at the stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal before it, in that case the Tribunal could straight away reject the evidence which was sought to the produced for the first time at the stage of appeal. 55. Thus, we find that the pr…

M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…n’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., [2013] 351 ITR 57 (Delhi) wherein after referring to the earlier precedents on the subject by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v. CIT, [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia (R.) v. CIT, [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Del) and also the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO v. Bhattacharya (B.N.), [1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had culled out the principle that discretion always lies with the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in th…

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)

…143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16 dated 15-12-2017 i.e. event occurring after issuing of impugned order. It also proves that the assessee is only running education institution. © As decided in the cse of R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons vs CIT , 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) the High Court dwelled on the powers of the Appellate Tribunal to submit additional evidence at the appellate stage in the following manner.:- 3 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur ‘’It is no doubt true that the Tribunal has got a discretion either to admit the documents as additional evidenc…

MAHALAXMI BULLIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6036/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…red to disclose as to what sort of misguidance was given to him by his CA/ARA Shri Atul Khandelwal nor any complaint against his CA/AR has been filed by the assessee at any point of time; 14.12 that the judgement cited RSS Shamugam Pillai & Sons vs CIT (Mad.) 95 ITR 109 relied upon by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the application under consideration itself has been filed by concealing the material facts as well as on the basis of distorted facts; 14.13 that the judgment cited as Smt. Prabhawati S. Shah Vs CIT 231 ITR 01(supra) is not applicable to th…

NORTH DELHI BULLION TRADERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6033/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…red to disclose as to what sort of misguidance was given to him by his CA/ARA Shri Atul Khandelwal nor any complaint against his CA/AR has been filed by the assessee at any point of time; 14.12 that the judgement cited RSS Shamugam Pillai & Sons vs CIT (Mad.) 95 ITR 109 relied upon by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the application under consideration itself has been filed by concealing the material facts as well as on the basis of distorted facts; 14.13 that the judgment cited as Smt. Prabhawati S. Shah Vs CIT 231 ITR 01(supra) is not applicable to th…

CIT vs. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 2065 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…ellate stage. The ambit of rule 29 of the Rules, in the process, was discussed in the following manner:- We may in this connection refer to the scope of the powers of the Tribunal under rule 29 of the Rules. In R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 109, this court had occasion to go into the question of the powers of the Tribunal to entertain or reject evidence. While accepting that the Tribunal has got a wide discretion to admit or reject documents at the stage of appeal, it was pointed out that such a discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner and that if the Tribunal found that the…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2