B.R. Bamasi v. CIT

83 ITR 223High Court1972#1495 most cited

What is B.R. Bamasi v. CIT authority for?

Under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, an assessee can raise an additional ground to support an order in their favour from the lower appellate authority, but not to obtain further relief or annul the assessment, thus adversely affecting the appellant.

76

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

B.R. Bamasi v. CIT · 83 ITR 223 · Rule 27 · ITAT Rules · additional ground · sustain order · not for further relief · adversely affect appellant · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1963Section 153ASection 143(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 33(4)section 147(b)closely held companysection 34(1)section 33accumulated profitssection 292bbsection 282section 34section 148(2)sanctioning authority

Judgments citing B.R. Bamasi v. CIT

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Systems (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4834/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Systems (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4833/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4832/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4831/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4830/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

Vivek Vinod Vaid, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Watermark Systems (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4828/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Watermark Systems (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

…sdiction High court in the case of (i) Peter Vaz Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay). In this case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the judgment in the case of B. R. Bamassi-Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) and further held that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to raise a legal ground although no cross-objection was filed by the respondent assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has framed an additional question of law which reads as under: - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee t…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…l has the authority to permit a new point to be raised, provided that the party who is affected by the raising of this point. (vide rule 12 of the Appellate I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 Tribunal Rules, 1946). (See also in this connection B. R. Bamasi v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom)). 26. In the case of J. S. Parkar v. V. B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 (Bom), the court said that new contention could be raised before the Tribunal in an appeal which had not been taken either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Income-tax Officer. In the case of CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel [1990] 186 ITR 29 (Bom), our…

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…their 'know-how' to the assessee for a reward : but that is assessee's foreign principals were merely supplying technical information to enable the assessee to carry on business in terms of the agreement." (p. 257) (f ) CIT v. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 (Bom.): In this case, it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on facts that it was possible to make available know-how by one person to another on the basis of a licence and the same would be a method of carrying on a business by the person who has the know-how. The Court quoted with approval the observation of Romer, LJ., in the…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result and with the observations as above, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3567/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…against on any of the grounds decided against him." 11. Under Rule 27 the Respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appealed against the order, on any of the grounds decided against him. In B.R. Bamasi v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court noted an earlier judgment in CIT v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.) which had held that the Respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on any grounds which are available to him, even though the decision of the Lower Court in his favour may not…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2072/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…then the revenue succeeds only to the extent that the appeal of the assesses would fait. 10.7 The scope of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules has been discussed by the Hon'b!e jurisdictions! High Court in the case of Bamasi (B.R.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 83 ITR 223 as under, "But even if the assesses had not made such a statement, the above judgment shows that the assesses would be entitled to raise a new ground, provided it is a ground of law and does not necessitate any other evidence to be recorded, the nature of which would not only be a defence to the appeal itself, but may also affect the validity of t…

ACIT Cir. - 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3187/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…then the revenue succeeds only to the extent that the appeal of the assesses would fait. 10.7 The scope of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules has been discussed by the Hon'b!e jurisdictions! High Court in the case of Bamasi (B.R.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 83 ITR 223 as under, "But even if the assesses had not made such a statement, the above judgment shows that the assesses would be entitled to raise a new ground, provided it is a ground of law and does not necessitate any other evidence to be recorded, the nature of which would not only be a defence to the appeal itself, but may also affect the validity of t…

M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…then the revenue succeeds only to the extent that the appeal of the assesses would fait. 10.7 The scope of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules has been discussed by the Hon'b!e jurisdictions! High Court in the case of Bamasi (B.R.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 83 ITR 223 as under, "But even if the assesses had not made such a statement, the above judgment shows that the assesses would be entitled to raise a new ground, provided it is a ground of law and does not necessitate any other evidence to be recorded, the nature of which would not only be a defence to the appeal itself, but may also affect the validity of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…he order of the ld. CIT (A) but the effect of the outcome of such plea in favour of the assessee would be failure of the revenue’s appeal. The scope of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT, 83 ITR 223 (Bom.) and observed at para 244 to 246 as under :- 39. Now there is no doubt that, as the assessee had already filed a voluntary return, the notice under section 34(1)(a) was wrongly issued and the proceedings of assessment which took place in pursuance of that notice are invalid. This is the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its said 10…

Sanjay Sawhney vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/834/2019HC Delhi18 May 2020
Section 132Section 142(1)(ii)Section 153CSection 253(2)Section 260A

…at even if it is accepted, it should be given effect to only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal and cannot be made use of, to disturb or to set aside, the order in favour of the appellant (See Bamasi v. CIT, [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom)). This liberty to the respondent is reserved by r. 27 of the Tribunal Rules. xxx xxx xxx 23. Of course, as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in Bamasi v. CIT, [1972] 83 ITR 223, earlier referred to, the assessee could use this argument only to sustain the order of the AAC but not to get further relief and have…

ITO, Ward-5(4) vs. Modern Home Care Products Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/DEL/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 55

…ised in the cross objection by the appellant in appeal. In fact, the courts in certain decisions also held that the respondent can raise new grounds/plea even if there is no formal memorandum of cross objection filed by the respondent. He vehemently relied on 83 ITR 223, 234 ITR 663, 256 ITR 423 and 102 ITD 189. He therefore submitted that the cross objection filed by the respondent is Pari material to an appeal filed by the appellant and therefore the rights available to an appellant in an appeal before the tribunal are equally available to a respondent in the cross objections without any fetters. 20. We have ca…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Fern Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3682/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiacit Vs. M/S Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/S Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2Nd Floor Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. M/S Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2Nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccr3509E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R
Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…ubmitted that above defensive argument has been raised at this juncture, at the outset to maintain status quo and not to seek any additional relief. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bamsi vs. CIT reported in 83 ITR 223, wherein a similar situation arose before Hon’ble Court. 8. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 9. The issue that needs adjudication is an interesting one. This is a case where assessee missed the bus to file a cross objection or a cross appeal. The situation is a peculiar one, where ass…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ranbaxy Health Care Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3108/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiacit Vs. M/S Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/S Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2Nd Floor Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. M/S Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2Nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccr3509E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R
Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…ubmitted that above defensive argument has been raised at this juncture, at the outset to maintain status quo and not to seek any additional relief. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bamsi vs. CIT reported in 83 ITR 223, wherein a similar situation arose before Hon’ble Court. 8. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 9. The issue that needs adjudication is an interesting one. This is a case where assessee missed the bus to file a cross objection or a cross appeal. The situation is a peculiar one, where ass…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. Jubilant Enpro P. Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3485/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Acit, Circle 1 Vs. M/S Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. Noida 201 301 Plot No.1-A Sector 16 A Noida 201 301 Pan: Aaace0653L

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 28

…hus submitted that there is no delay in filing present cross objection, as it is filed within 30 days of receipt of intimation of appeal being filed by revenue. 4.7. On perusal of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bamsi vs. CIT, reported in 83 ITR 223, it is observed that Hon’ble court relying upon views taken by various High Courts observed as under: “The only question is whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (…