Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

199 ITR 351High Court1993#162 most cited

What is Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

441

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 199 ITR 351 · Bombay HC · additional grounds · appellate authority · legal claim · ascertain correct tax liability · revenue account deduction

Also reported as

66 Taxmann 27

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 1961Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 132Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 253(2)section 253(1)section 119chief commissionersection 115jsection 254cross objectionfinal assessment ordersection 29section 234bsection 43draft assessment order

Judgments citing Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12 Acit Vs. Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd. Cent. Circle 3 R/O F-28, New Delhi Smalakha Bandh Road, Near Hotel Uppal Orchid New Delhi - 110 037 Pan Aafcp3180Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 107/Del/2019 Asstt. Year 2011-12 Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R/O F-28, Cent. Circle 3 Smalakha Bandh Road, New Delhi Near Hotel Uppal Orchid New Delhi - 110 037 Pan Aafcp3180Q (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68

…f Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. 141 ITR 326. However the said decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd, (supra) has been overruled by the larger bench of the same Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs CIT 199 ITR 351. Further the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neetee Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been overruled by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fast Booking India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 334 to 338, 339, 342/2015 order dated 2nd September, 2015. Referring to various other decisions filed in his synopsis, Ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted t…

Kakinada Sez Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1251/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Manish Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ve erred in accepting its income declaration u/s 57 of the Act than the correct head of income from house property u/s 24 of the Act. We therefore exercise our inherent power vested u/s 254 of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s full bench decision in (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Vs.CIT held long back that the legislative expression “pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit” confers the widest possible jurisdiction on tribunal so as to decide the issue before us. We also quote Chenncai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) that if the assessee concerned has let ou…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

…ITC Ltd. (ITA No.685/Kol/2014 dt.27.11.2018) (Kol. Tribunal). . Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments - a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) b) Jute Corportion of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688)(SC) c) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351)(Bom FB) d) M/s. WheelsIndia Ltd. (ITA No.251/Mds/2010 dt.14.03.2014) (Mad.) e) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs.DCIT (ITAT, Special Bench, ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 dt.21.05.2012) In the above cases, the Ld. AR submitted that since there is no question of investigation of fresh facts, the additional ground is a legal issue to be admitted by the T…

Thimmareddy Krishnareddy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2650/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Anand Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

…exercise their jurisdiction in a given case is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. 11. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351/66 Taxman 27 considered a similar situation. In that case, the appellant/assessee did not claim a deduction in respect of the amounts it was required to transfer to contingencies reserve and dividend and tariff reserve either before the Income Tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Bombay H…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai vs. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6213/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…regard, the appellant relies upon the following landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)] iv. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 7. In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the enclosed additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated upon by your honour.” 5. The assessee has raised the following additional ground in the appeal: - A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 “1. The Ld. CI…

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6092/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…regard, the appellant relies upon the following landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)] iv. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 7. In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the enclosed additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated upon by your honour.” 5. The assessee has raised the following additional ground in the appeal: - A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 “1. The Ld. CI…

I2 Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 391

…t set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] wherein it was held that there is nothing in section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in any manner. The phrase "pass such order thereon" found in Sec. 254(1) of the Act does not in any way restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but, on the contrary, confers the widest possible jurisdi…

Jajoo Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt (President) & Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 1142/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Jajoo Enterprises Ltd. DCIT, Central Vs. Shop No. 3, Building Circle 4(3) 3/C, Jai Hind Estate 19th Floor Dr.A.M. Road Air India Building Bhuleshwar Nariman Point Kalbadevi Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. PAN : AAACJ9939L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjape Department by Shri Samantha Nullamudi Date of Hearing 21.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Justice P.P. Bhatt (President):- Th…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appellate Authority under the IT Act had sufficient powers to permit such a deduction. In taking this view, the Division Bench relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351 to hold that the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act have very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the Assessee. The Appellate Authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is t…

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

…r a fresh or new ground or claim is not restricted to cases where such a ground did not exist when the return was filed and the assessment order was made. 16(A). A Full Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1993) 199 ITR 351 considered a similar situation. In that case, the appellant/assessee did not claim a deduction in respect of the amounts it was required to transfer to contingencies reserve and dividend and tariff reserve either before the Income Tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Subsequently, this Court had, in Amalgamated El…

Msm Discovery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ee otherwise than by filing of a revised return of income, and the same did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In the case before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Ahmedabad Electricity Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB), the assessee had not claimed deduction in respect of the amounts it was required to transfer to contingencies reserve and dividend and tariff reserve either before the Income Tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, the assessee raised a new claim and additional grounds before the Tribunal, which h…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 AssessmentYear:2009-10 M/s. Wipro Limited Doddakannelli Addl CIT Sarjapur Road Vs. Range-12 Bangalore-560 025. Bangalore PAN NO :AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.398/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Wipro Limited Deputy Commissioner of Doddakann…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 AssessmentYear:2009-10 M/s. Wipro Limited Doddakannelli Addl CIT Sarjapur Road Vs. Range-12 Bangalore-560 025. Bangalore PAN NO :AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.398/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Wipro Limited Deputy Commissioner of Doddakann…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…e of inquiry; his purview, nay duty and, rather, the whole purport of the assessment proceedings, is to bring to tax the correct income chargeable to tax. And which, again, represents trite law (refer, inter alia, Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)). It is in fact in view of this that the four- way test, including the absence of proper inquiry, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Courts toward regarding an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. And for which reference may again be made to the decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Deepak Kumar Garg…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…. v. UoI [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), the facts of each of which are also telling. Tax proceedings are not in the nature of lis, and their premise, it may be appreciated, is the correct assessment of income as per law (Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)). The decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), and the others following it, while accepting that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to tax proceedings, is, on the other hand, on the basis that where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or…

Sony Pictures Networks India P.Ltd(Successor of Msm Discovery Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6630/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6630/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited (Successor Of Msm Discovery Private Limited) Interface Building No.7, 5Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-12(3)(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appellate Authority under the IT Act had sufficient powers to permit such a deduction. In taking this view, the Division Bench relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351 to hold that the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act have very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the Assessee. The Appellate Authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is t…

Kec International Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…cision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Assessment Year :2012-13 Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (229 ITR 383); Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (187 ITR 688) & the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admission of additional ground at this stage and submitted that the issue would require factual verificati…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 115/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…cision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Assessment Year :2012-13 Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (229 ITR 383); Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (187 ITR 688) & the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admission of additional ground at this stage and submitted that the issue would require factual verificati…

Mannulal Jagannath Das Trust Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/JAB/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) explained that r.11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules is not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal. The said decision was, among others, considered in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB), to explain that the appellate proceedings, being in continuation of the assessment proceedings, it is the correct assessment of income and, consequently, determination of the correct tax liability, that is the premise and the end objective of the appellate proceedings. Tax proceedings, or proceedings under the Act, are, it is trite law…

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

…229 ITR 383 (SC); and (ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). Also support was drawn by him from the judgment of the ‗full bench‘ of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) objected to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal. 3. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties in context of the issue pertaining to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal. In our considered view there is substantial force…