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 367,164 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 97/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 90/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 89/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n the assessment order, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the matter on merits. It is well settled the ld CIT(A) has a plenary power to consider the issue in merits. Numaligarh Refinery Limited We note that in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) it is held that the basic purpose of an appeal procedure in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…wing precedents for admission of the additional grounds: - “-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee i…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…wing precedents for admission of the additional grounds: - “-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee i…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…wing precedents for admission of the additional grounds: - “-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee i…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…wing precedents for admission of the additional grounds: - “-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee i…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemical Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…wing precedents for admission of the additional grounds: - “-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee i…

Sumita Shreegopal Barasia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 4909/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble G. Manjunatha, Ajm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi TFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…herwise, this ground goes to the roots of the case, therefore keeping in view the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vrs CIT 229 ITR 383, Jute Corporation of India Vrs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Ltd. Vrs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), we allow the 5 I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 SunitaShreegopalBarasia application dated 26.07.19 and admit the additional grounds mentioned above for adjudicating on merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from house property and other sources. The return of income for the year under appea…

Kohler Power (I) P Ltd (Earlier Known As Lombardini India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2467/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2467/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Smt. Mugdha Sardeshpande, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 274Section 92C

…this ground should be admitted. The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) 3. We have heard the submissions of the assessee and have perused the relevant documents filed before us as well as judicial pronouncements placed before us. Respectfully, following the binding judgments referred before us and taking totality of facts and circumstances, we are convinced that additional grounds goes to the root of the matt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 534/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

…cord. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC);  Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC);  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and  All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT - ITAT Special Bench – ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 order dated 21 May 2012. 6. The Revenue in ITA 566/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) Comparable selection . Dispute Resolution Panel erred in selection and rejection of comparables as -…

Assitant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 486/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

…cord. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC);  Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC);  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and  All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT - ITAT Special Bench – ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 order dated 21 May 2012. 6. The Revenue in ITA 566/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) Comparable selection . Dispute Resolution Panel erred in selection and rejection of comparables as -…

Mercedez-Benz India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 380/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

…cord. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC);  Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC);  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and  All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT - ITAT Special Bench – ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 order dated 21 May 2012. 6. The Revenue in ITA 566/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) Comparable selection . Dispute Resolution Panel erred in selection and rejection of comparables as -…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 566/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

…cord. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC);  Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC);  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and  All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT - ITAT Special Bench – ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 order dated 21 May 2012. 6. The Revenue in ITA 566/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) Comparable selection . Dispute Resolution Panel erred in selection and rejection of comparables as -…

Mercedes - Benz India Prviate Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 514/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

…cord. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC);  Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC);  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and  All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT - ITAT Special Bench – ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 order dated 21 May 2012. 6. The Revenue in ITA 566/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) Comparable selection . Dispute Resolution Panel erred in selection and rejection of comparables as -…

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

…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…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.)
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…d may be admitted/. The ld counsel relied on the following decisions in defense of his arguments: 1. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (229 ITR 386 SC) 2. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) The Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, objected to the admission of the additional ground on the grou…