How many judgments cite Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

441 judgments on BharatTax cite Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 1961, Section 153A, Section 139(1).

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 367,154 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 148 Section 147 Section 1961 Section 153A Section 139(1)Section 132 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 253(2)section 253(1)section 119 chief commissioner section 115j section 254 cross objection final assessment order section 29 section 234b section 43 draft assessment order

Judgments citing Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Zoetis Pharmaceuticals Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ Zoetis Pharmaceutical Acit 11(3)(2) Research P. Ltd., Mumbai 31, Level-3, V. Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcp5293L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Siddharth Shah Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 3715/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Siddharth ShahFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251

…unds of appeal I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 need to be admitted in the interest of justice . The assessee also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT v. S. Nelliappan [16 ITR 722 (SC)] 2. Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 3. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 5. Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 6. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] The Ld. DR objected to the admission of the additional ground but however left the matter to the discretion of the Bench to decide as to…

D M Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 110/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.110/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dm Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 240/B, ‘Mohite House’ Gen. Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416 003 ………अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcm6281H Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274Section 80I

…le Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR 688 and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company reported in 199 ITR 351. 5. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to the order of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Vikas Baurao Takawane in ITA No.2245/PUN/2014, dated 26-07-2017 and submitted that similar issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal held that such initiation and levy of penalty amounts…

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…tion 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) by placing reliance upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in NTPC Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court) and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom.)(FB). 2. During hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri K. Gopal along with Ms. Neha Paranjape, contended that legal ground can be raised before this Tribunal even for the first time. It was contended that assessment under section 143(3) was passed on 23/09/2009 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 23/06/2014, thu…

Allseas Marine Contractors Sa, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Allseas Marine Contractors Dy. Director Of Income Sa C/O Nangia& Company Tax-(International) Vs. Unit No. 1101, 11Th Floor, B Taxation)-1(1) Wing, Peninsula Business Mumbai. Park, Ganpatraokadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aagca0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Mr. M.V. Raj Guru, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M.V. Raj Guru, DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 5Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Allseas Marine Contractors Dy. Director of Income SA C/o Nangia& Company Tax-(International) Vs. Unit No. 1101, 11th floor, B Taxation)-1(1) Wing, Peninsula Business Mumbai. Park, GanpatraoKadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN No. AAGCA0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate Revenue by : Mr. M.V. Raj Guru, DR Date of Hearing : 11/06/2018 Date of pronouncement : 07/09/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This…

M/S Braza Tyres (P) Ltd., Paonta Sahib vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surinder Meena, JCIT

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEYFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Braza Tyres (P) Ltd., Vs. The DCIT, Circle, Rampur Ghat, Paonta Sahib, Shimla District Sirmour (HP) PAN No. AACCB7366F & Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Cinq Micron Chem (P) Ltd., Vs. The DCIT, Circle, Rampur Ghat, Paonta Sahib, Shimla District Sirmour (HP) PAN No. AAACC5741R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Harry Rikhy, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Surinder Meena, JCIT Date of Hearing : 24.05.2018 Date of Pronoun…

M/S Chinq Micron Chem (P) Ltd., Paonta Sahib vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surinder Meena, JCIT

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…7/Mum./2010; iv) Prism Cement Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.5957/Mum./2009; v) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC); vi) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v/s CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 (Bom.); vii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) 31 Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) viii) Maya Enterprises v/s ACIT, ITA no.507/Mum./2017, dated 28.02.2017. 65. As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, Sales Tax incentives have been granted by various State Governments for setting–up industries in the backwar…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7092/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

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

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. Neeraj Aggarwal, Ward-2(2), Jammu Khasra No. 69/3, Village-Singhola, 656, Gali No. 11, Sardar Bazar, Delhi-6 [Present at 545, Patoli Magotrian, Jammu] [PAN: ACZPA 1726C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR Respondent by: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.) Date of Hearing: 21.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 09.08.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the R…

Apna Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4566/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4566/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Ms. Retuja Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR

Section 68

…Foods Pvt. Ltd. 5. Therefore, while keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), Ahemdabad Electrical Vrs. CIT 199 ITR 351, wherein it has been held that legal grounds, which goes to the roots of the case, can be raised and allowed at any time /stage. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles in mind, we allow the assessee to raise the additional grounds. Hence, application dated 14.02.2018 is allowed and admit the additional grounds moved by the assessee. 6.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 571/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 154Section 80Section 80I

…rtheless, we are unable to understand, could it not raise this issue in appeal; the mandate of an appellate authority being the correct determination of the assessee’s taxable income, and thus tax liability (refer: Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)). A legal issue could be raised for the first time before any appellate authority where the relevant facts are available on record and not disputed. The limitation on the power of the assessing authority – where the claim is not pressed through his return by an Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Dy. CIT (AYs. 2006-07 & 2005-06) assessee, in…

Kashmir Steel Rolling Milss., Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 544/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 154Section 80Section 80I

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

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

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…and the purview of an appellate authority, as the tribunal, is the correct determination of the assessee’s income and consequential tax liability (CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB)), on which it is therefore incumbent to issue proper directions to the Revenue authorities (Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC)). Even rules 11 and 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal, as explained in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC). The…

Parikshit Mandir Sial, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)- 4(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri, G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 377/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Ito (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 501, Sea Goddess Green Field Air India Building., Nariman बिधम/ Estate, A.B Nair Road, Opp. Juhu Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Post Office, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 057. स्थामीरेखासं./जीआइआयसं ./ Pan/Gir No. Avjps5311E (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri.Reepal Tralashawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 57

…of circumstances or law, but also with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the cases of Ahemadabad Electricity Company Vs. CIT and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom), had observed 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. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Court that both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal can consider the proceedings and the material on record before it…

M/S Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1716/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aashre SarnaFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. The full bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of "Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs. CIT" and "Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT" by way of a common order dated 30.04.1992 (1993) 199 ITR 351 has observed 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, at both the stages, either by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and t…

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 667/MUM/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 195Section 248

…reliance on the following case laws: - Jute Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v CIT [19981 229 ITR 383 (SC) - CIT v Nelliappan (S.) |1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) - Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) - Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT |1994| 208 ITR 958 (Bom.) - Inaroo Ltd. v CIT (1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.) - CIT v Goviodram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.) 5. Since the facts are identical, we are referring to the facts and figures from ITA No. 667/Mum/2016. Accordingly, we adjudicate the issues arising out of all the above grounds…

Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are allowed as above

ITA 599/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 195

…reliance on the following case laws: - Jute Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v CIT [19981 229 ITR 383 (SC) - CIT v Nelliappan (S.) |1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) - Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) - Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT |1994| 208 ITR 958 (Bom.) - Inaroo Ltd. v CIT (1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.) - CIT v Goviodram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.) Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 5. Since the facts are identical, we are referring to the facts and figures from ITA No. 667/Mum/2016. Accordingly, we adjudicate this issue arising out of…

Sh. Surinder Singh S/O Sh. Chanan Singh, Batala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Batala

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

ITA 430/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 430/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…njoined to issue appropriate directions to the lower authority. Case law in the matter is in fact legion; we may though refer only to a couple of decisions, viz. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB). It is this that leads us to hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law in-as-much as it is an in limine order, without addressing the merits of the addition/s impugned on their merits per a speaking order, as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to add, the parties were during hearing, heard on this aspect. 5 Suri…

M/S. Shashwati Constructions, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax - II

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

ITA 2010/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2010/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil U. PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 263Section 80I

…sess correct tax liability. The ld. AR in support of his submission placed reliance on the CBDT circular dated 11.04.1955 and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 199 ITR 351 (FB). 5.2 The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee cannot be penalized for the wrong advice given by Chartered Accountant. The assessee has obtained certificate from the Architect after completion of proceedings u/s. 263 of the 5 A.Y. 2009-10 Act. Therefore, there was no occasion for the assessee to furnish this document either before t…

Percy M. Batliwalla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7195/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7195/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…on merits in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmadabad Electricity Company Ltd. v CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351(Bom.) We , under these circumstances , are of considered view that this ground of claim of exemption u/s 54F raised by the assessee for the first time before learned CIT(A) need to be admitted and we direct admission of this ground raised by the assessee . Now the matter need to be set aside and restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudica…