Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 132, Section 147, Section 139(1).

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

Q: How many judgments cite Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd.?

102 judgments on BharatTax cite Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. (111 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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 153A Section 153C Section 132 Section 147 Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 132(4)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 10ba section 46 section 46a section 158bb(1)retraction of statement section 158bb minimum alternate tax section 80a(5)section 158b(b)section 153a(1)(a)

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

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.4784 & 4785/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-tax-Central Circle 6(2),19th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (west), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. PAN No. AAACA5579P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate Re…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 held that the AAC had no jurisdiction to consider the new entries held that the AAC had no jurisdiction to consider the new entries held that the AAC had no jurisdiction to consider the new entries which were not considered at all by the ITO and to add the amount of Rs. 2,30,000 to which were not considered at all by the ITO and to add the amount o…

Smt. Vijayamma Syamprakash Vaidyan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2192/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2192/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt.Vijayamma Syamprakash Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaidyan, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. 832, Q-Tower, Ashirwad Palace, Near Jamna Nagar Bus Stand, Jivkornagar, Bhatar, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Akmps 7570 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…Tribunal accepted the revised computation and restored the matter back to the file of AO to consider the claim of assessee afresh. The Tribunal while restoring the claim of that assessee followed the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurjagrauvreous P Ltd (111 ITR 1 SC), wherein it was laid down that the assessee is not only entitled to raise additional grounds of appeal but also entitled to raise additional claim. The assessee also furnished revised return of total income to claim the reduction in her sale price of shares of Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Smt.Vijayamma S.Vaidyan Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat/…

Bnp Paribas India Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani , ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 234C

…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 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…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…ITA Nos. 1459-1460/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Futura Polyster Ltd. Vs ITO-6(3)(1) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited ITO 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. INDL Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAACI3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘s Respondent by: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date of Pron…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

…in which the AO stated that assessee has not claimed the said expenses either in the original or in the revised return and submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 and Gurjargravurs Pvt. Ltd. 111 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that if claim is not made before the AO, the AAC cannot entertain such claim in the appeal proceedings. The AO stated that the assessment order was passed after giving reasonable and adequate opportunities to the assessee and therefore requested to uphold the disallowance. 19. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the issue as legal issu…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3530/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, advocateFor Respondent: Shri NK Bansal

Section 271Section 274Section 40Section 40A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE, AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3528/Del/2016 for assessment year 2001 – 02 ITA No. 3529/Del/2016 for assessment year 2004 – 05 ITA No. 3530/Del/2016 for assessment year 2005 -06 Yum! Restaurant (India) private vs The Income Tax Officer ltd Ward – 27 (4) 12th floor, Tower D CR building Global business park New Delhi MG road Gurgaon – 122002 PAN :- AAACY1883E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Ananya Kapoor, advocate Revenue by: Shri NK Bansal Senior Departmental Representative Date of Heari…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2588/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) बनधम/ M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd Pr. Chief Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Tower No.1, Income-Tax-2 Vs. Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, One India Bulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Elphistone Road, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1314G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Karthik Natarajan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013-14 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1556,56,31,880/- For The A.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2016 Assessing The Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1725,96,68,536/-. On Verification, It Was Found That The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Requires Revision. The Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On The Following Grounds: - “On Examination Of The Records It Is Seen That Deduction To The Tune Of Rs.3,22,50,564/- Has Been Allowed To The Assessee U/S 35D Of The I.T. Act, 1961. However, It Was Noticed That The Said

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Natarajan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2588/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) बनधम/ M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd Pr. Chief Commissioner of 8th Floor, Tower No.1, Income-tax-2 Vs. Room No.344, 3rd Floor, One India Bulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Elphistone Road, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACI1314G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Karthik Natarajan (AR) Revenue by: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR) सुन…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2015-16 HARISH KUMAR, (HUF), Vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 34(1), 5/21, SHANTI NIKETAN, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 804, 8TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI – 110 021 (PAN: AAAHH9496M) E-2 BLOCK, PRATYAKASH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. Ashu Goel, CA Department by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.11.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner o…

Sugam Vanijya Holdieng P.Ltd, Bengluru vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6722/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Sugam Vanijya Holding P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Vr Bengaluru, No.11B, Survey Circle-24(2), No.40/9, Dyvasandra Industrial Area, New Delhi. 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. Pan: Aaacs1883J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Cas & Shri Harpreet Ajmani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Mixed Commercial Development Projects At Whitefield, Bangalore. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.11.2013 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.13,24,24,139/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…d 9 the assessee from raising such a claim before the lower authorities. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- i) Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2017-TIOL-785-HC-MUM-IT]; and ii) Addl. CIT vs. Gurjarqravures (P) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in his rejoinder, submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) is not applicable since the audit report was not available on record. However, in the instant case, the facts are already on record and, therefore, the additional ground should be admit…

Hemant G. Bohra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1) (Erstwhile-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4197/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Hemant G. Bohra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Shop No.15, 52/52A, Income Tax – 19(1) Room No.203, 2Nd Floor Nanubhai Desai Road Islampura Street Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 004 Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Adnpb4773D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 57

…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 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…

M/S. Sam India Builtwell (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1841/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 271A

…there is nothing on record to indicate as to what prevented the assessee from raising such a claim before lower authorities. 2. Addl. CIT Vs Addl. CIT Vs Addl. CIT Vs Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd Addl. CIT Vs Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) (Copy Enclosed) (Copy Enclosed) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in holding that if an item of income was taxed, the question of its non-taxability should be taken to have been consider…

M/S. Sam India Builtwell (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1840/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 271A

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

York Scientific Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6030/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f Delhi) 10 (ii) CIT-4 vs Jamundadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers PVt. Ltd. (2013) (iii) DCIT vs Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (ALL.) (v) Addl. CIT V Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT vs Edwert Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (D) (vii) Ultratech cement Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, Range-2(2), (2017) 298 CTR 43 (viii) Self Knitting works \/s 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Varun Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain &For Respondent: Ms Pratima M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69C

…he pre-condition that issue should arise 6. from assessment proceedings has not been satisfied. Also, it is submitted that the NTPC case has not specifically overruled the 7. Judgment in the case of Gurjargravures [Addl. CIT Vs Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd [19781 111 ITR 1 (SC)] which bars raking up of an issue not raised earlier. It is also pointed out that in the NTPC case, the Hon’ble court has relied on 8. the case of Jute Corporation of India which in turn has relied on the case of Kanpur Coal. However, in Kanpur Coal the issue has been raised before both the A.O. and the first Appellate authority. Moreover, t…

Indian Road Congress, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

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

ITA 775/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year:2008-09

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…on an order of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2017] TIOL- 785-HC-MUM-IT. Learned D.R. further placed reliance on the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). ~ 4 ~ 4. Learned A.R., in his rejoinder, submitted that if the case is set aside to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of its additional evidence, which is in the form of corrected Form-10 and resolution then he will not press ground No. 1 on legal issue. The opinion of Learned D.R. for setting aside the matter was sought who though…

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

…ion could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Similar views have been held in CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC). 2.2 In Addl. CIT -VS.- Gurjarqravures P. Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC). a two judge bench of the Apex Court had taken a different view holding that, In absence of any claim made by the assessee before the A.O., he is not entitled to raise the claim before the appellate commissioner, when no material were on record. However, the three judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation (Supra) took note…