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 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

Deepak L. Kulpe, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4859/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4859/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur RFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC versus CIT 229 3 I.T.A. No. 4859/Mum/2017 Deepak L. Kulpe ITR 383 and also other judgements such as Jute Corporation of India Ltd versus CIT 187 ITR 688 Supreme Court and Ahmedabad electricity company Ltd versus CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bombay), we are of the considered view that the ground which the assessee now wants to raise before us by way of additional ground is legal in nature and hence it can be raised at any point of time therefore ,we allow the assessee to raise this ground by way of additional ground of appeal and consequently, allow the application dated 10/1/18 and…

Dciat 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sundaram Multipap Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5327/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT-14(3)(2) M/s. Sundaram Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Multipap Limited R.No. 455 5/6, Papa Industrial M.K. Road Estate, Suren Road Mumbai-400 020. Andheri East Mumbai-400 093. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 272/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/s. Sundaram DCIT-14(3)(2) Multipap Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 5/6, Papa Industrial R.No. 455 Estate, Suren Road M.K. Road Andheri East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AADCS7829K…

M/S. Panduranganagar Residents Welfare Association, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed subject to observations made in the order

ITA 761/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…on into Page 3 of 4 facts apart from looking into the material already on record. Principles for admission of additional grounds have been laid down repeatedly by Courts and we may refer only to a few of those decisions in 229 ITR 383 (SC), 187 ITR 688 (SC), 199 ITR 351 (Born FB), 193 ITR 624 (Ker). We overlooked this aspect of the issue and the same has now been brought to our knowledge by our counsels. Hence it is prayed that the above ground may be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law.” 4. In the course of hearing before me, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the additional grounds rai…

SHI vs. Hambho Narayan Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3029/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Shivshambho Narayan Ddit (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5T H Floor, Geetai Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers , V. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadts8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram and Ms.Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri. V Justin
Section 1Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/s. Shivshambho Narayan DDIT (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5t h Floor, Geetai CHS Ltd., Piramal Chambers , v. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADTS8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. Shivram and Ms.Neelam C. Jadha…

Bombay Forgings Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2184/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrir. C. Shrma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2015(Ay 2007-08)

For Appellant: Ms. ArjuGarodia, DR byFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram / Ms
Section 45(2)

…r fresh facts. 7. 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 the legal grounds, which goes to the roots of the case can be raised and allowed at any stage of proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles in mind, we allow the assessee to raise the C.O. No. 59/Mum/2017 Bombay Forgings Ltd additional grounds of appeal. Hence, the application dated 16th Dec 2018 i…

Langar Committee Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla vs. Income Tax Officer, (Examption), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…f the Tribunal. In Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC), the Apex Court clarified that an appellate authority is duty bound to correct all errors in the proceedings and issue appropriate directions. In Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB), the Hon’ble Court, after an exhaustive review of case law in the matter, explained that the basic purpose of an appeal in an income-tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Both the appellate commissioner as well as the appellate tribunal can, as an appellate authority, consider the p…

Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee in AY 2011-12 stands allowed

ITA 6716/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1181/Mum/2002 (Ay 1998-99) Bay Lines (Mauritiues) Adit (It) – 3(2) C/O-Freight Connection Mumbai - 400020 India Pvt. Ltd. 3-C, Omkar Esquare, Sion – बनाम/ Chunabhatti Juction, Vs. Sion Trombay Rd, Sion (E) Mumbai-400022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcb5853G & Cross Objection No. 32/Mum/2010 (Ay 1998-99)

For Appellant: Sh. M. V. Rajguru, DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. E. Dastur / Harsh

…r fresh facts. 7. 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 cross objection. Hence, application dated 14th June 2017 is allowed and the additional cross objection /ground raise…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment Private Limited (Formerly Known As Mahindra Air Services Limited ), Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed except for A

ITA 5993/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA No.5993/Mum/2017 to 5997/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/s. Mahindra Telecommunications Vs. ITO –Range – 2(2)(3), Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Formerly known as Mahindra Air Services Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACM3774E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prasad Bapat Revenue by Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing 22/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement 19/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the asses…

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1223/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…ssessee alo placed reliance on the following decisions for admission of additional grounds of appeal: i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT (187 ITR 688)(SC) ii. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (229 ITR 383)(SC) iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351)(Bom) iv. DCIT vs. Quark Systems (P) Ltd. (ITA No.100(CHD)/2009) (ITAT,Chandigarh). 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of considered opinion that additional grounds of appeal be admitted in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal IT(TP)A No.1223/Bang/2011 Page 11 of 15 Power Cor…

Ganpat Mukundrao Murkute, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 2141/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1208/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Mahendra R. Vitkar ………. अपीलाथ" / S. No.16, Belthika Nagar, Appellant Thergaon, Chinchwad, Pune-411 035 PAN : AAJPV4381N. बनाम v/s Income Tax Officer, ……. ""यथ" / Ward 10(2), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1213/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, ………. अपीलाथ" / Ward 9(4), Pune. Appellant बनाम v/s Shri Mahendra Rajaram Vitkar…

ITO Ward 9(4), Pune vs. Sh. Mahendra R. Vitkar, Pune

ITA 1213/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1208/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Mahendra R. Vitkar ………. अपीलाथ" / S. No.16, Belthika Nagar, Appellant Thergaon, Chinchwad, Pune-411 035 PAN : AAJPV4381N. बनाम v/s Income Tax Officer, ……. ""यथ" / Ward 10(2), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1213/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, ………. अपीलाथ" / Ward 9(4), Pune. Appellant बनाम v/s Shri Mahendra Rajaram Vitkar…

Sh. Mahendra R. Vitkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Pune

ITA 1208/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1208/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Mahendra R. Vitkar ………. अपीलाथ" / S. No.16, Belthika Nagar, Appellant Thergaon, Chinchwad, Pune-411 035 PAN : AAJPV4381N. बनाम v/s Income Tax Officer, ……. ""यथ" / Ward 10(2), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1213/PUN/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, ………. अपीलाथ" / Ward 9(4), Pune. Appellant बनाम v/s Shri Mahendra Rajaram Vitkar…

Bharat Kishormal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1965/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Rc Sharma, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Bharat Kishormal Shah The Deputy Commissioner 220, Commerce House, 140, Of Income Tax Circle 5(3), Vs. N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacps5442A

For Appellant: Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: C.S. Gulati, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153A

…r fresh facts. 6. 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 4 been held that the legal grounds, which goes to the roots of the case can be raised and allowed at any time /stage. Therefore, keeping in view the principles in mind, we allow the assessee to raise the additional grounds of appeal. Hence, the application dated 24-11-2017 is allowed and the additional grounds raised by the assess…

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…l 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, had by way of a common order, dated 30.04.1992 (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 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 and the material…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153A

…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 , had by way of a common order, dated 30.04.1992 (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 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 th…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…raised in a bona fide manner without indulging in delay tactics. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • 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 [349 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)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…raised in a bona fide manner without indulging in delay tactics. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • 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 [349 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)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…raised in a bona fide manner without indulging in delay tactics. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • 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 [349 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)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)]; Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT [187 ITR 688(SC)] and that of the Full Bench order in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351(Bom) (FB)] 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, objected to the admission of the additional ground and contended that this issue has been decided in A.Y. 2008-09 against the assessee. In subsequent years i.e. A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11, there were no issue before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). This ground is taken for the first time before…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)]; Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT [187 ITR 688(SC)] and that of the Full Bench order in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351(Bom) (FB)] 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, objected to the admission of the additional ground and contended that this issue has been decided in A.Y. 2008-09 against the assessee. In subsequent years i.e. A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11, there were no issue before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). This ground is taken for the first time before…