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.

Unitech Wireless (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6791/Del

ITA 6793/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…he Scheme of Amalgamation was within the knowledge of assessee, therefore, he should have raise this point before the authorities below. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravvres P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Held reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed 9 ITA.Nos.6789 to 6791/D/2015, 6788 & 6793/D…

Unitech Wireless (West) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6791/Del

ITA 6791/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…he Scheme of Amalgamation was within the knowledge of assessee, therefore, he should have raise this point before the authorities below. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravvres P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Held reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed 9 ITA.Nos.6789 to 6791/D/2015, 6788 & 6793/D…

Unitech Wireless (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6791/Del

ITA 6790/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…he Scheme of Amalgamation was within the knowledge of assessee, therefore, he should have raise this point before the authorities below. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravvres P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Held reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed 9 ITA.Nos.6789 to 6791/D/2015, 6788 & 6793/D…

Unitech Wireless (North) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6791/Del

ITA 6789/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…he Scheme of Amalgamation was within the knowledge of assessee, therefore, he should have raise this point before the authorities below. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravvres P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Held reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed 9 ITA.Nos.6789 to 6791/D/2015, 6788 & 6793/D…

Unitech Wireless (South) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6791/Del

ITA 6788/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…he Scheme of Amalgamation was within the knowledge of assessee, therefore, he should have raise this point before the authorities below. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravvres P. Ltd., (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Held reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed 9 ITA.Nos.6789 to 6791/D/2015, 6788 & 6793/D…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 6870/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…se the assessee had been held liable to pay purchase tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the additional claim. The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the applications of the application for a reference. On appeal, the Supreme Court said: "An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it…

M/S Curam Software International Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

ITA/775/2017HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…al on record to support such a claim nor this issue was subject matter of proceedings before the AO or Hon’ble DRP. Therefore, no new claim can be allowed in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. (111 ITR 1). Furthermore, there is nothing in the petition for admission of additional grounds of appeal indicating reasons which prevented the appellant/assessee from raising a claim for deduction of expenditure incurred on ESOP for the assessment year under consideration during the proceedings before the AO or the CIT(A). In identical facts of the…

Suman Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…laws discussed therein, on identical facts, I am of the considered view that the appellate authorities have power to consider the claim not made in the return by following the decision from the Hon’ble Apex Court in Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (178) 111 ITR 1 wherein, it was held that the assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions, before the appellate authorities, but also entitled to raise additional claim before them and further appellate authorities have discretion to permit such additional claims. Thus, respectfully following the above precedents, I remand the issue in d…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…(ii) CIT-4 Vs. Jamunadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(2013) 258 CTR 458 (Bom) (iii) DCIT Vs. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT Vs. Jindal Ployster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All) (v) Addl. CIT Vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT Vs. Edwert Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Del) (vii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom) (viii) Self Knitting Works Vs. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The ld. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…the return, the assessing officer can not debar the assesses from claiming the deduction. The judgement of the honorable Supreme Court in Goetze (India) (2006) 284 ITR 323 5.C. was not applicable to such exemption. iv. 332 ITR-306 P&H V/s. Ramco International 111 ITR 1 SC, 12 As held in his case, claim u/s. 80IB was not allowed on the ground that assessee had not filed revised return, ITAT allowed deduction on the ground that assessee was not making any fresh claim and duly furnished documents and- Form 10CCB during assessment proceedings. There was no requirement for filing any revised return. The judgment of Go…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 3849/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charyvs Srf Ltd., Dcit, Circle-9(1), Room No.163, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Jcit (Osd), Srf Ltd., Unitech Crest, Greenwood City, Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon-122003. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & Sh. R.K.Kapoor, Ca Date Of Hearing 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2017

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ng non-emission of carbon, the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the said income. For this purpose, he placed reliance on Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs ACIT [2017-TIOL-785-HC-MUM-IT]; ACIT vs Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC); Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT 47 taxmann.com 416, 31 ITR(T) 477; and S.P Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 34 (Chennai-Trib.). 8. On this aspect of sale of CER, we agree with the Ld. AR that in view of their plea that because of the decision in My Home Ltd. (supra) cause of action had arisen to them, Ld.CIT(A) should not h…

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 3437/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charyvs Srf Ltd., Dcit, Circle-9(1), Room No.163, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Jcit (Osd), Srf Ltd., Unitech Crest, Greenwood City, Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon-122003. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & Sh. R.K.Kapoor, Ca Date Of Hearing 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2017

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ng non-emission of carbon, the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the said income. For this purpose, he placed reliance on Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs ACIT [2017-TIOL-785-HC-MUM-IT]; ACIT vs Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC); Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT 47 taxmann.com 416, 31 ITR(T) 477; and S.P Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 34 (Chennai-Trib.). 8. On this aspect of sale of CER, we agree with the Ld. AR that in view of their plea that because of the decision in My Home Ltd. (supra) cause of action had arisen to them, Ld.CIT(A) should not h…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…point for the reason the fact on which the legal point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is sufficient irrespective of the fact that it in the case of th…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…point for the reason the fact on which the legal point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is sufficient irrespective of the fact that it in the case of th…

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…ons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose .of the same by passing a speaking order.” 3.9 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Additional CIT Vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. {1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) { that claim for exemption not made before AO and no material on record supporting such claim cannot be made before AAC is in conformity to this fundamental rule and the relevant portion of head notes reads as under, "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…ons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose .of the same by passing a speaking order.” 3.9 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Additional CIT Vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. {1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) { that claim for exemption not made before AO and no material on record supporting such claim cannot be made before AAC is in conformity to this fundamental rule and the relevant portion of head notes reads as under, "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…ons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose .of the same by passing a speaking order.” 3.9 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Additional CIT Vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. {1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) { that claim for exemption not made before AO and no material on record supporting such claim cannot be made before AAC is in conformity to this fundamental rule and the relevant portion of head notes reads as under, "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding…

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…ons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose .of the same by passing a speaking order.” 3.9 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Additional CIT Vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. {1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) { that claim for exemption not made before AO and no material on record supporting such claim cannot be made before AAC is in conformity to this fundamental rule and the relevant portion of head notes reads as under, "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding…

Ajaykant Ramprasad Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 579/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…ir jurisdiction in a given case is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. 16. At page 694, after referring to certain observations of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) the Supreme Court observed 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 available on acc…

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 55/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.55//Bang/2015 (Asst. Year 2009-10) M/S Samsung R&D Institute India Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. . Appellant Aaics 6290F. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent It(Tp)A No.60//Bang/2015 (Asst. Year 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri Kapil Hirani, C.A Respondent by : Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT

…jurisdiction 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 IT(TP)A No.55 & 60…