Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT

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

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

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

…on 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 the above grounds as under: Apropos main ground of…

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

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…ns: • 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 account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for…

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

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…ns: • 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 account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for…

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

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…ns: • 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 account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for…

Videocon Oil Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Videocon Oil Ventures Ltd DCIT Cir 3(3)(2) बिधम/ 171C Mittal Court, Nariman Mumbai Vs. Point, Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AADCV1810B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Mrs. MalathiSridharan सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21/06/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/09/2017 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

…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 (66 ITR 722 (SC) • Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CWT (208 ITR 958 (Bom) 7. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pradeep G. Vora vide ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 pronounced on 30.05.2014 examined the issue of admission of additional ground in detail vide para Nos. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the order. In paragraph No. 3.1, it is held that the power of the Tribunal to allow an additional plea/additional evidence originates…

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

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

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

…. 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 the case the assessment order dated 19.03.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143…

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

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

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

…. 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 the case the assessment order dated 19.03.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143…