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. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण“गुवाहाटी” "ायपीठगुवाहाटीम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI "ीएस.एस. गोदारा , "ाियकसद"एवंडॉए.एल.सैनीलेखासद"केसम"। BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM Assessee`s Appeals ITA No. 5/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2007-08 ITA No. 6/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2008-09 ITA No. 7/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2009-10 ITA No. 8/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 89/GAU/2016-Assessment Year 2011-12 ITA No. 90/GAU/2016-Assessment Year2012-13 ITA No. 27/GAU/2017- Assessment Year 2013-14 Numaligarh Refinery Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income 122A, G.S. Road, Ch…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण“गुवाहाटी” "ायपीठगुवाहाटीम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI "ीएस.एस. गोदारा , "ाियकसद"एवंडॉए.एल.सैनीलेखासद"केसम"। BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM Assessee`s Appeals ITA No. 5/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2007-08 ITA No. 6/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2008-09 ITA No. 7/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2009-10 ITA No. 8/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 89/GAU/2016-Assessment Year 2011-12 ITA No. 90/GAU/2016-Assessment Year2012-13 ITA No. 27/GAU/2017- Assessment Year 2013-14 Numaligarh Refinery Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income 122A, G.S. Road, Ch…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण“गुवाहाटी” "ायपीठगुवाहाटीम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI "ीएस.एस. गोदारा , "ाियकसद"एवंडॉए.एल.सैनीलेखासद"केसम"। BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM Assessee`s Appeals ITA No. 5/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2007-08 ITA No. 6/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2008-09 ITA No. 7/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2009-10 ITA No. 8/GAU/2014- Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 89/GAU/2016-Assessment Year 2011-12 ITA No. 90/GAU/2016-Assessment Year2012-13 ITA No. 27/GAU/2017- Assessment Year 2013-14 Numaligarh Refinery Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income 122A, G.S. Road, Ch…

Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1780/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1780/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai V. Assistant Commissioner Of Patel,(Sheta), Income Tax, Central 10 Shantiniketan Row House, Circle-2, Surat Anand Mahal Road Adajan, Surat. [Pan: Abcpp 1275 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Sriniwas T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…f 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. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2671/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

…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. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 90/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

…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. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5048/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Delhi and the decision in case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. [1965] 56 ITR 556 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following judgments:- 1. CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499- Gujarat High Court 2. CIT v. Malhotra Industrial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 635- Punjab & Haryana High Court 3. CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.[2011] 336 ITR 49-- Punjab & Haryana High Court Therefore, in view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer with respect to treating the pur…

M/S. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5047/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Delhi and the decision in case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. [1965] 56 ITR 556 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following judgments:- 1. CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499- Gujarat High Court 2. CIT v. Malhotra Industrial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 635- Punjab & Haryana High Court 3. CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.[2011] 336 ITR 49-- Punjab & Haryana High Court Therefore, in view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer with respect to treating the pur…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…by the assessee in appeal, even though they may not have been raised before the ITO, If grant of relief would be available to him on determination of such question. Similar principle also approved in the case of CIT -vs,- Cellulose Products Indja Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj - HC - FB), 2.8. Supreme Court in Jute Corporation Ltd. (Supra) specifically approved the decision of Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court In Rajkumar Srjmal -vs.- CIT (1976) 102 ITR 525 (Cal. ), where it has been held that, the appellate commissioner was entitled to admit new ground or evidence either suo moto or at the invitation of the app…

M/S Gmr Energy Trading Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2065/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Gmr Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant Pan:Aadcg0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 251(1)(a)

…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…

M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Grower'S Federation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 494/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raokarnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd., No.11, Blue Cross Chambers, Infantry Road Cross, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaak 1189 M Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 8(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 251(1)(a)Section 254Section 80P

…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 Page 4 of 5 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 app…

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…resaid conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the decision Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) and also considered the decisions in CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) [FB] and CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.). Thus, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee pertains to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, beyond four years. The contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that there was no failure…

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…x (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. karmachand 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 nec…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘KSFC Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent PAN:AAACK 9480 H Appellant by : Shri A.C.Raju, CA. Respondent by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 18/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the o…

Langar Committee Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla vs. Income Tax Officer, (Examption), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…hipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB). The matter accordingly shall travel back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, in light of the foregoing findings/ observations. The assessee shall be allowed deduction qua any expenditure incurred, if any, including administrative expenditure, for the purposes of the running the institution or organizing…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) : TC 7R.343 applied; 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 overruled. (Para 3) The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of appeal before the CIT(A) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. 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 q…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) : TC 7R.343 applied; 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 overruled. (Para 3) The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of appeal before the CIT(A) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. 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 q…

Bhima Raj Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 304/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Ad.)For Respondent: Smt. Punam Rai (DCIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ome-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., C.I.T, v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388(Delhi), C.I.T. v. KaramchandPremchand P. Ltd.[1969] 47 ITR 254 (Guj) and C.I.T. 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…

Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…3] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB). 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on September 27, 2017 at Chennai. (जॉज" माथन) (संजय अरोड़ा) (George Mathan) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member चे"नई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated, September 27, 2017. EDN आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy to:…

John Crane Sealing Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…3] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB). We decide accordingly. 13. In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced on September 15, 2017 at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (संजय अरोड़ा) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member चे"नई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated, September 15, 2017 EDN आदेश…