Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pravin B. Bhandarkar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

…for adjudication though finally decided against 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 the…

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Prakash B Bhandarkar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

…for adjudication though finally decided against 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 the…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pandoo P. Naig, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

…for adjudication though finally decided against 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 the…

Pandurang Naig, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

…for adjudication though finally decided against 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 the…

Ushdev International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ushdev International Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 020 Road, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Ushdev International Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Income Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 001 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent

…ed in the case of (i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)], (ii) Jute Corporation of India v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] and (iii) the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Full Bench rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB). 12. Out of the three additional grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal, additional ground No.3 is general in nature and requires no specific adjudication. The effective interrelated & interconnected additional grounds No.1 and 2 are reproduced herein below for reference:- “1. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the carbon c…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

…ate of the investment. The A.O. shall do so, of-course after allowing opportunity to present its working with regard thereto and consider the same. We consider ourselves competent to issue such a direction (refer: Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)). 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on May 24, 2016 (Joginder Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 24.05.2016 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Ap…

Anushakti Chemical and Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4340/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Anushakti Chemical & Drugs Ltd. Addl. Cit-10(3), 2Nd Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Mumbai बनाम/ Mulund, Goregaon Link Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca 4760 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mohd. Javed

…he Revenue. Reference for the purpose of law in the matter may be made to the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB), rendered relying on a series of decisions by the Apex Court. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. प"रणामतः "नधा"रती क" अपील आं"शक "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on May 18, 2016 (Ramlal Negi) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Da…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

…referred to would suggest, cannot be read removed from or de hors the purpose for which and toward which the adjudication under reference is being made. As explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not restricted to the subject matter of the appeal, i.e., the points challenged in the memorandum of appeal before it, but ranges over the whole assessment. If the evidence is not to enable it to pass an order in a more satisfactory manner, with reference to the issue/s arising, which require its de…

Chandrika Tapuriah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

…supra) referred to would suggest, cannot be read removed from or de hors the purpose for and toward which the adjudication under reference is being made. As explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not restricted to the subject matter of the appeal, i.e., the points challenged in the memorandum of appeal before it, but ranges over the whole assessment. If the evidence is not to enable it to pass an order in a more satisfactory manner, with reference to the issue/s arising, which require its de…

Syed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

…count or otherwise explained by him, are thus liable to be included as the assessee’s income. We, confirm the addition to this extent, also drawing support from Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 45 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), which we do for the other additions sustained by us as well. We may clarify that when we state so, we are not ‘enhancing’ the assessment, but only stating the sum liable to be added at its correct amount in-as-much as the amount (Rs.0.35) has been clearly and identically stated as other entries prior thereto, though remained to be typ…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

…referred to would suggest, cannot be read removed from or de hors the purpose for which and toward which the adjudication under reference is being made. As explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not restricted to the subject matter of the appeal, i.e., the points challenged in the memorandum of appeal before it, but ranges over the whole assessment. If the evidence is not to enable it to pass an order in a more satisfactory manner, with reference to the issue/s arising, which require its de…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, v. 5 th floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACL2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)…

Farid Gulmohamed, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

…not raised earlier, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - 4 Shri Farid Gulmohamed (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 s…

ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

…re legal issues and therefore can be raised at any stage of appellate proceedings. In support of this contention, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) NTPL vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC) (ii) Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd., 199 ITR 351(Bom) 9 ITA No. 5113-14 /MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 &2007-08 & ITA 5067/MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2007-08 7.3 The Ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contention and perused and carefully considered the issues raised and the material on record; including the judi…

ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

…re legal issues and therefore can be raised at any stage of appellate proceedings. In support of this contention, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) NTPL vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC) (ii) Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd., 199 ITR 351(Bom) 9 ITA No. 5113-14 /MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 &2007-08 & ITA 5067/MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2007-08 7.3 The Ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contention and perused and carefully considered the issues raised and the material on record; including the judi…

Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT (CC) 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

…re legal issues and therefore can be raised at any stage of appellate proceedings. In support of this contention, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) NTPL vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC) (ii) Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd., 199 ITR 351(Bom) 9 ITA No. 5113-14 /MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 &2007-08 & ITA 5067/MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2007-08 7.3 The Ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contention and perused and carefully considered the issues raised and the material on record; including the judi…

Lalit Mohan Dhanda, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…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 Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)] 5 Shri Lalit Mohan Dhanda 7. In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the enclosed additional ground may kindly be admitted, adjudicated and decided by Your Honours.” 4. Additional grounds of Appeal: In the course of proceedings, before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the additional grounds of appe…

A.C.I.T. C.C. 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Lakhmichand D. Rohira, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…2-03 to 2008-09 31 kindly be admitted and adjudicated by relying on the following decision:- i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd v. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 11.2 The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the admission of the additional ground. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and DR, we find that the the issue was raised before the AO and CIT(A) but inadvertently not raised in the grounds of appeal before us and we therefore admit the additional ground in view of the above decision…

Lakhmichand D Rohira, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC- 24 & 26, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…2-03 to 2008-09 31 kindly be admitted and adjudicated by relying on the following decision:- i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd v. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 11.2 The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the admission of the additional ground. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and DR, we find that the the issue was raised before the AO and CIT(A) but inadvertently not raised in the grounds of appeal before us and we therefore admit the additional ground in view of the above decision…

Lakhmichand D Rohira, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC- 24 & 26, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…2-03 to 2008-09 31 kindly be admitted and adjudicated by relying on the following decision:- i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd v. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 11.2 The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the admission of the additional ground. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and DR, we find that the the issue was raised before the AO and CIT(A) but inadvertently not raised in the grounds of appeal before us and we therefore admit the additional ground in view of the above decision…