Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd.

111 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1978#1072 most cited

What is Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. authority for?

An appellate authority can allow an assessee to raise an additional ground of appeal, even if not raised before the Assessing Officer, if the ground could not have been raised earlier or became available due to changed circumstances, provided there are good reasons for its delayed submission.

102

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gurjargravures P. Ltd. · 111 ITR 1 · additional ground of appeal · appellate authority power · raising new claim · section 250 · section 251 · changed circumstances appeal · Jute Corporation of India · income tax appeal procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 147Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 132(4)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 10basection 46section 46asection 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbminimum alternate taxsection 80a(5)section 158b(b)section 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd.

M/S. Angelica Properties Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner Income-Tax

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…icate case [1964] 53 ITR 225. It appears from the report of the decision in the Gujarat case that the three Judge Bench decision in Kanpur Coal Syndicate case [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) was not brought to the notice of the Bench in Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). In the circumstances, the view of the Larger Bench in Kanpur Coal Syndicate case [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) holds the field...." (p. 694) 4. Having regard to the decision in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd.'s case (supra), it must be held that the High Court was in error in Vascon Engineers Ltd., (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) holding that th…

Vascon Engineers Ltd (Successor to Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…icate case [1964] 53 ITR 225. It appears from the report of the decision in the Gujarat case that the three Judge Bench decision in Kanpur Coal Syndicate case [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) was not brought to the notice of the Bench in Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). In the circumstances, the view of the Larger Bench in Kanpur Coal Syndicate case [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) holds the field...." (p. 694) 4. Having regard to the decision in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd.'s case (supra), it must be held that the High Court was in error in Vascon Engineers Ltd., (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) holding that th…

ITO -Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…specifically on the question of jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Supreme Court, it may be stated, in that case, referred to its earlier decision in Add. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and explained and distinguished the same. The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as settled. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these authorities could do all that t…

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…specifically on the question of jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Supreme Court, it may be stated, in that case, referred to its earlier decision in Add. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and explained and distinguished the same. The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as settled. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these authorities could do all that t…

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…specifically on the question of jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Supreme Court, it may be stated, in that case, referred to its earlier decision in Add. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and explained and distinguished the same. The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as settled. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these authorities could do all that t…

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…specifically on the question of jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Supreme Court, it may be stated, in that case, referred to its earlier decision in Add. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and explained and distinguished the same. The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as settled. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these authorities could do all that t…

Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…of Delhi) (ii) CIT-4 v. Jamunadas Virji Shaes and Stock Brokres Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 258 (Bom.) (iii) DCIT v. Sandip m. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal polyster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (19780 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT v. EdwerKeventer (Successors0 P. ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi) (vii) Ultratech Cement ltd. v. Addl. CiT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom) (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CiT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raise…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…elhi) (ii) CIT-4 v. Jamunadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 458 (Bom.) (iii) DCIT v. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal Ployster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT v. EdwertKeventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Dr (vii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. AddI. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 43' (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by…

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

…rred to earlier and also referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. as also Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. while arriving at this conclusion. 27. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures [1978] 111 ITR 1, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the Tribunal had allowed a point to be raised which had not been taken before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that such a point should not have been allowed to be raised. It said, however, that it was not called upon to consider a case w…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT, Trivandrum vs. Brahmos Aerospace( Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

…urisdiction in a given case is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. 12. At page 694, after referring to certain observations of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd., [1978] 111 ITR 1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or that the ground became availab…

Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur vs. Shri Raja Vikram, Bastar

ITA 347/RPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 347/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Dist. Bastar (C.G) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Raja Vikram P/O. M/S. Vikas Associate ( Engineers), Jeypore Road, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G) Pan : Acopr6013N ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…se is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. 12. At page 694, after referring to certain observations of the Supreme Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not CO No.83/RPR/2015 A.Y.2007-08 have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

…because the same had become liable to payment subsequent to the assessment order. The Full Bench observed that the Apex Court in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) made reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1, and held that it does not prohibit the raising of an additional ground before the appellate authority, when the ground so raised could not have been raised before the Assessing Officer or the ground now becomes available in view of changed circumstances such as a decision of a Court allowing a particular deduction. 17 M/s Sangam India Limited Ass…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ITA Nos. 6609 &6610/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 1 The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA. No.6609 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. Income tax Officer-1(3)(1) Sarawat Bank Bhavan, Plot No.953, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 PAN – AABAT4497Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No.6610/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Saraswa…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2235/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri P. Chandra SekharFor Respondent: Sri Chythanya K.K. DR
Section 143(3)

…as the ITAT and his powers are restricted to subject matter of appeal remitted back by the ITAT and he cannot have more powers than ITAT. 5. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Gurjagravures Pvt Ltd 111 ITR 1 that when a claim of exemption not made before ITO no material on record supporting such Page 3 of 6 ITA No 2235 of 2018 Zuari Cement Ltd Kadapa claim – AAC cannot entertain such claim in appeal proceedings. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not following the binding decision of the Supreme Court that assessee was not entitled to claim exemption w…