74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.

151 ITR 499High Court1985#1178 most cited

What is 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. authority for?

The Appellate Tribunal has broad powers to allow a new ground of appeal to be raised, particularly when it involves a question of law arising from facts already on record, if doing so is necessary to correctly assess the assessee's tax liability.

96

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Appellate Tribunal powers · new ground of appeal · question of law · facts on record · correct tax liability · CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. · CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

19 Taxmann 278

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153ASection 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 144c(15)(b)section 144c(15)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 264eligible assesseesection 153(1)section 34section 292b

Judgments citing 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to…

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…sioner (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal - vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388/5 Taxman 308 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised w…

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)", "VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H)", "Siksa O Anusadhan Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112) [Orissa HC)", CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.HC), "CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.HC)- (FB)","P.V.Doshi Vs. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.HC)". ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 7 – 7. The replaced grounds taken on merit by the assessee vide letter dated 30.06.2023 are as under: “1. That on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law293/ CIT(A) erred in confirmi…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…LERY SHOW VS ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR the assessing officer rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that no revised return was filed. 37. In case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. reported in [1985] 151 ITR 499, full Bench of this Court held that merely because a ground has not been raised though it could have been raised in support of the relief sought in the appeal, it cannot be said that such ground cannot be raised before the Tribunal. Such ground can be raised provided it falls within the contours of the subject matter of the appeal. 38. It thus be…

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37

…With these observations Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the assessing officer rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that no revised return was filed. 37. In case of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.), Full Bench of this Court held that merely because a ground has not been raised though it could have been raised in support of the relief sought in the appeal, it cannot be said that such ground cannot be raised before the Tribunal. Such ground can be raised provided it falls within the contours of the subject matter of the appeal. 38. It…

Little Fairy Limited, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1512/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) [FB]). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary t…

Little Fairy Ltd, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1511/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) [FB]). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary t…

Mohan Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254Section 68

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) [FB]). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary t…

Mohan Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 103/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254Section 68

…of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) [FB]). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary t…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Uni Design Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3006/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 10Section 115JSection 201Section 35ASection 43BSection 80Section 80G

…ioner (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal - vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388/ 5 Taxman 308 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised w…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…380 (ITAT Mum.) • Bector Food Specialties Ltd Vs. JCIT [2019] ITA No. 396/Chd/2013 (ITAT Chandigarh) • Hukumchand Mills Ltd Vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) • VMT Spinning Co Ltd. Vs. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 326 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.[1984] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) 8. It was further submitted that in respect of an issue for which all facts are on record, an assessee can make claim of deduction/ exemption for first time even before the Tribunal: • CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Mum.) • CIT Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 429 ITA No. 296-Chd-2020 -…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…e Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254. The view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254, was reiterated by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Cellulose Product of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499. This view has also been followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hukumchand and Mannalal Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 251 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388. For reasons set out above, we differ from the view taken in these cases. 38. Our High Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v.…

M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Nabha vs. DCIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1495/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

…of the powers of the Tribunal [vide, e.g., CIT vs. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Del) : TC 8R.1021, CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) : TC 8R.547 and CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 278 (FB) : (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB) : TC 8R.965]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is…

M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

…of the powers of the Tribunal [vide, e.g., CIT vs. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Del) : TC 8R.1021, CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) : TC 8R.547 and CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 278 (FB) : (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB) : TC 8R.965]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is…

M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1500/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

…of the powers of the Tribunal [vide, e.g., CIT vs. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Del) : TC 8R.1021, CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) : TC 8R.547 and CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 278 (FB) : (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB) : TC 8R.965]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

…of the powers of the Tribunal [vide, e.g., CIT vs. Anand Prasad (1981) 128 ITR 388 (Del) : TC 8R.1021, CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) : TC 8R.547 and CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 278 (FB) : (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB) : TC 8R.965]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is…