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 366,470 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

Mighty Constructions (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 6551/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mighty Construction Pvt. Dcit, Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-9(2), 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Universal Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Business Park, Chandivali Farm Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Off Saki Vihar Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcm3581C यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Suman Kumar-Dr

Section 133ASection 144ASection 80G

…ing question of law and goes to the root of the matter, the assessee may be allowed to take up the legal ground. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Jute Corporation of India vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.). The ld. counsel took us to various paras of the impugned order and more specifically para 3.9 (page-8) of the impugned order by contending that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority is contrary to facts. Our attention was also invited to para 5.16 of the assessment order by explaining that there was lack of opportunity by…

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

ITA 579/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…ate authorities to consider 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. (A) A Full Bench of this court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 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 Assis tant Commissioner in appeal. Subsequently, this court had, in Amalga…

Flughafen Zurich Ag, Bangalore vs. DDIT International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1525/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT -2 & Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT-2

Section 143(3)

…djudication of the subject matter may result enhancement of total income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Millls Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 ITR 232 as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 199 ITR 351. The full bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court while deciding the issue of the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enhance the tax liability has held that the Tribunal while dealing with an appeal enhance the tax liability of the assesse if it accept the contention of the Department. Thus it is clear that while deciding an issue before the…

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

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

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

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

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

…ate authorities to consider 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 Ltd. v. CIT [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…

M/S. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1286/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 253Section 92C

…he decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT (187 ITR 688) and National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT (229 ITR 383); decision of full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351) and decision of Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (IT Appeal No 100 (CHD,) of 2009). In the above circumstances the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: IT(TP)A No.1286/Bang/2010 Page 6 of 10 i. Admit and adjudicate the above additional ground, ii. Pass any other order that may be re…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…olders, 349 ITR 336, held that the assessee is entitled to raise before the appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in return filed by it. The Bombay High Court also in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 199 ITR 351(Bom) held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to permit additional grounds to be raised before it even though these might not have arisen from AAC's order, so long as these grounds were in respect of subject matter of entire tax proceedings. The Courts have also upheld admission of additional grounds in the following cases: • CIT Vs. S. Nelliappan…

Cambridge Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1469/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT, DR-I

Section 10Section 10ASection 144C(5)

…ITA.1469/Bang/2010 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1469/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Xchanging Solutions Ltd, (Formerly Cambridge Solutions Ltd) Plot No.13, 14, 15, SJR iPark, EPIP Industrial Area, Phase-1, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant PAN : AAFCS9303L v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Chavali Narayan, CA Revenue by : Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT, DR-I Heard on : 09.11.2017 Pronounced on…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sharp Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1109/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sheri M.K. Biju, Addl. CIT (ITAT)-3, DR

Section 10ASection 92C(2)

…ns of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. C.I.T. (187 ITR 688) and National Thermal Power Corporation vs. C.I.T. (229 ITR 383) as well as the full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351) and the decision of Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (IT Appeal No.100(CHD.) of 2009). In the above circumstances the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to; IT(TP)A No.1109/Bang/2011 & CO 13/Bang/2012 Page 9 of 33 (i) admit and adjudicate the above additional ground, (ii) pass any oth…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Refrigerator Co. Ltd, Aurangabad

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

ITA 941/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

…. Lest we may be, in so directing, be considered as having travelled outside the scope of these appeals, reference may be drawn, inter alia, to the decisions in Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). 9 ITA No.941/Mum/2014 & ITA No.3949/Mum/2013 Indian Refrigerator Co. Ltd. (AYs. 2007-08 & 2008-09) 3.4 The assessment for both the years is accordingly set aside qua the issue of claim for the impugned depreciation, and the matter restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for adjudication by issuing definite findings of fa…

Indian Regrigerator Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 79

…ruent in substance are the subsequent decisions, so that the law in the matter is well-settled, viz. CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back a…

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…There can be no embargo on the power of the tribunal to consider such correct provision, if such relief is, in fact, not available as per law under the correct provision. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB)] has held that Rules 11 and 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules indicate that the scope of enquiry before the Tribunal can be wider than the points which are raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, would ordinarily have the power to allow additional points to be raised before it so long as they arise from the su…

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

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

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we wish to rely on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Honbie Jurisdictional High Court:- 1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 2. CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 5. Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 6. Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 7. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)]” 3.8. Following additional grounds have been raised along with the aforesaid petition: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of th…

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

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

ITA 4497/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1294/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(6)Section 244A

…nor wanton but due to oversight. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions : i. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. 187 ITR 688 (SC) ii. NTPC Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) iii. Ahmedabad Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) Thus the learned Authorised Representative has pleaded that the additional grounds raised by the assessee may be adjudicated on merits. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has vehemently opposed to the admission of the additional grounds and submitted 5 IT(TP)A Nos.1294/Bang/2012 & 166/Bang/2014 that the assess…

ITO 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Meghi Parbat Patel, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6390/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…onsider question of law not raised earlier, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) National Thermal Power Corporation (229 ITR 383) (SC) (ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688 (SC) (iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. ()199 ITR 351) (Bom) 4.2 We have heard the rival contentions of the learned A.R. for the assessee and the learned D.R. for Revenue and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. From an appreciation of the material on record and the judicial pronouncements cited, we are of the considered opinion that…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle Petrofer P.Lt, Mumbai

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri K.C.Kanojia (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 253Section 80I

…ng of additional ground of C.O., the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of (i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [219 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)]. The ld AR for assess argued that additional ground of C.O. may be admitted as the same is purely question of fact and that no new facts are required to be brought on record. Ld. On the other hand 3 ITA No. 182/M/2015 & C.O. 123/M/2016 M/s Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. the ld DR for the Revenue argued that no such ground was taken b…

Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3573/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/O. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers बनाम/ Room Ni. 640, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 24, 2Nd Fanaswadi, D. A. Lane, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.03.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

For Appellant: Shri D. C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 143(3)

…Further, lest one considers us as having, in so directing, travelled outside the scope of the appeal, we may advert to the decisions, inter alia, in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). The reliance on J.K. Charitable Trust (supra) and 12 ITA Nos. 3573 & 3762/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Satish Panalal Shah (supra) is, as would be apparent from the foregoing, completely misplaced. 5.5 We decide accordingly. Revenue’s Appeal (in ITA No. 3762/Mum/2014) 6. The assessee-company was…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2151 & 2153/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09)

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Honours. In this regard, we rely upon the following decisions rendered by various courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Coroporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)]” 4.2 We have heard counsel for both the parties on application for raising additional grounds and considering the fact that the ground raised through the present application is purely legal in nature and no new evidence is required to be brought on record in deciding the pure question of law. Therefore considering the settled ratio la…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2151/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2151 & 2153/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09)

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A