Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 147.

74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (151 ITR 499)

Q: 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.

Q: How many judgments cite 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.?

96 judgments on BharatTax cite 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (151 ITR 499), spanning 2010 to 2026.

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

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

ITA 621/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…

Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-3, Indore

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 149/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (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), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back as in Hukumchand Mills Ltd (supra). The assessee’s ground is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. 7 ITA Nos.148 & 149/Mds/2015 (AY…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 148/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (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), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back as in Hukumchand Mills Ltd (supra). The assessee’s ground is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. 7 ITA Nos.148 & 149/Mds/2015 (AY…

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT, Dehradun

ITA 1170/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92

…2010-11 B G Exploration and Production India Limited INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BG Exploration & Production JCIT, India Ltd, International Taxation, BG House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai PAN:AAACE4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, BG Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, BG House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai PAN: AAACE4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra,…

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 79

…993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); 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), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back as in Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC). Indeed in that case, the Revenue, though not in appeal, raised a contention not in s…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 840/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…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…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 1432/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06