Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT

161 ITR 159Supreme Court of India1986#2360 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT · section 147 · section 148 · section 153A · section 139(1) · section 139(5) · reassessment proceedings · search assessments · return of income · scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

27 Taxmann 295

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 148 Section 154 Section 132 Section 139(5)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 11b section 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)convertible foreign exchange section 2(45)section 153(a)section 158bb(1)section 153a(1)(a)section 139(5)section 10b section 153a proceedings

Judgments citing Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5252/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…T: 229 ITR 383(SC) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. CIT vs. Aspentech India CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the afores…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5251/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…d vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved…

Hirdey Ram, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 319/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2014-15 Hirdey Ram, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O L.C. Yadav & Company, Gurgaon 205, Arcadia, South City-2, Haryana - 122102 Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018 (Pan: Aarpy8597K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

…roceedings before the AO. However, the fact remains that when the return was processed by the AO, no details/evidence in respect of said interest payment were available from the return filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. (161 ITR 159) has held that if clear data is not available, it is not obligatory on the part of the AO to pass rectification order u/s. 154. Therefore, the action of the AO of rejecting the request of the appellant for rectification, cannot be faulted…” 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties…

Hariom Biotech Agri Farming, Nagpur vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, CPC Bengaluru Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 300/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 2

…ome. Rectification under section 154 of the Act is not obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer if clear data is not available and in this regard we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Anchor Processing Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1986] 161 ITR 159 (SC). The assessee failed to submit revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act to take care of the omission in the original return of income. This is an appeal against order Hariom Biotech Agri Farming ITA no.300/Nag./2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act. The scope is narrow and constricted and merits of…

Sandhya Ramdev Kunjur, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Holding That Appellant Needs To File A Separate Appeal Against The Order Dated 22-12-2019 Passed U/S. 144 Rws 147 When Said Order Is Issued In Electronic Mode On The Inactive Pan: Αλεpk5449B & 2 Sandhya Ramdev Kunjar The Present System Does Not Permit The Appellant To Access The Account Bearing Invalid Pan To File The Appeal Electronically Against Such Order. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order U/S. 154 Of The Learned A O Which Did Not Give Any Reason For Holding That The Relief Sought For By The Appellant Was "Beyond The Scope Of The Act". 3. The Learned Cit-A Has Ignored The Jurisdictional High Court Judgements In Blue Star Engineering Co (Bombay) (P) Ltd Vs Cit Bombay City [1967] 73 Itr 263 (Bom) & Other Decisions In Holding That The Relief Sought By The Appellant In Her Petition U/S. 154 Could Not Be Granted. Accordingly, It Is Prayed That This Honourable Court Allow The Appeal & Direct The Respondent To Cancel The Assessment Order Passed On 22-12-2019 Under Section 144 On The Inactive Pan.”

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154

…old PAN which was already surrendered, does constitutes a mistake apparent from record which falls within the scope and ambit of rectification u/s.154. The Hon’ble 11 Sandhya Ramdev Kunjar Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) held that the jurisdiction u/s 154 to rectify the mistake is much wider than provided in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, and therefore, relief could be allowed in the rectification proceedings if all the factual material necessary for allowing the relief were available on record and such relief could not be denied merely because the as…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All) CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) CIT vs Simon Carves Ltd: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT and Ors: 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs CIT: 229 ITR 383, (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Re:Decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. - not applicable Further, it is pertinent to note that Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (supra), made it clear that the bar on considering any additiona…

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…h assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should" 21. Further, we also note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts on record, the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of allowability of the claim, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to raise the issue at appellate levels.” 5.6 The coordinate bench of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Mayur Uniquoters Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 02/JP/2022 and…

Vipulbhai Labhubhai Sutariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 41/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 41/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipulbhai Labhubhai Sutariya, Vs. The Cit(A)-1, Surat. A-68, Shanti Niketan Society, Nr. Dharam Jivan Row House, Mota Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Chops 2930 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2022 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…ciously. As per CBDDT circular dated 03.11.1955 cited in Choksi vs CIT (107 ITR 363) and also as held in the decisions of CIT vs. Ahemndabad Miles (128 ITR 486), CIT vs/ Mattu (139 ITR 1020), CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Mills (160 ITR 920) (SC) CIT vs/ Anger Pressings (161 ITR 159) (SC) and other such cases, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to draw attention of the assessee to the deductions, relief, and refund to which, he / she himself / herself to be entitled, under facts of the case, if assessee is omitted to make the claim. Just because, assessee has accepted 12% profit on Turnover by mistake does not mean that…

Pr. CIT -1, Delhi vs. M/S. Crystal Crop Protection

ITA/173/2022HC Delhi25 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…/002774 ITA 173/2022 Page 3 of 6 considering the legislative intent of section 143 (3) of the Act and by relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Anchor Pressings P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. The ITAT also placed reliance on a CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11th April, 1955 to note that it is the obligation of the assessing officers to make the assessee aware about any refund or relief which may be due to the assessee and not to take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee of its rights. 6. Therefore, the ITAT held that the add…

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

…h assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should" 21. Further, we also note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts on record, the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of allowability of the claim, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to raise the issue at appellate levels. 22. Having said so, the issue whether the Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy can be treated as capital rece…

Neeraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed in terms of aforesaid directions

ITA 2/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaneeraj Kumar Jain, Vs. Acit, C-89, Ashok Vihar, Shakti Nagar Circle-34(1), Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipj9521D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…een disclosed by him in his return of income, could not have been declined by the A.O on the basis of hyper technical reasons. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court, had observed, that where an assessee who was entitled to claim a deduction had omitted to raise such claim in his return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings, then, he was entitled to make such claim by moving an application u/s. 154 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the observations of…

Dhanesh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi

ITA 4657/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Ravish Sood(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhanesh Kumar Jain Acit C-89, Shakti Nagar Vs Circle – 50 (1) Extension, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aahpj55020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 57

…een disclosed by him in his return of income, could not have been declined by the A.O on the basis of hyper technical reasons. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, had observed, that where an assessee who was entitled to claim a deduction had omitted to raise such claim in his return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings, then, he was entitled to make such claim by moving an application u/s. 154 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the observations of…

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)

…h assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should" 21. Further, we also note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts on record, the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of allowability of the claim, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to raise the issue at appellate levels. 22. Having said so, the issue whether the Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy can be treated as capital rece…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…kshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (I) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All.) CIT v Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors.: 161 ITR 159 (SC) CIT v Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 136 Taxman 66 (Raj) CIT v. Ahmedabad Keiser-e-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.: 128 ITR 486 (Guj.) CIT v Archana R. Dhanwatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom.) Sneh Lata Jain vs. CIT: 140 Taxman 156 (J&K) PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd.:[2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Del.) CIT v. Bharat Aluminiu…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…tax per legal provisions. It is trite law that relief to assessee is not dependent upon claim made by the assessee but the authorities are judicially bound to render justice at their own as has been held by the Apex Court in Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 159 (SC). The Hon’ble ITAT, relying on the judgment of Anchor Pressings (Supra) has held in the case of Container Corporation of India ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD (Delhi) that if an assessee is entitled to relief on the basis of material on record, it would constitute mistake apparent from record and consequently, such relief cannot be denied merely b…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…being disallowed under the section claimed but if that expenditure is allowable/deductible as per other provisions of act. In this connection, we draw the kind attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 wherein it has been held that Assessing Officer is duty bound to grant the exemption/ deduction M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT even where assessee failed to claim the same. The operation para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :- "An obligation is imposed on the Income-tax Officer by section 84 of the Income-ta…