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

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…he disallowance of Rs.14.96 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. It was thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay after referring to its earlier orders in the case of B.R. Bamasi v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bombay) and Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hazarimal Nagji & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 1168 (Bombay), had dealt with the scope of powers vested with a respondent under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The High Court had observed that under Rule 27 the respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appe…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 10Section 10(32)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1243/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Nashik .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Smt. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha, 4, Vardhman Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AHMPK6577H ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date o…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Hadapsar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3960/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Rahul Raman
Section 115JSection 17(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…td., additional evidence and stated at bar that he restrict his arguments qua these documents which are placed at serial no. 22 and page no. 114 to 118. 7. Be that as it may, the power of appellate tribunal is equivalent to the power of Civil Court as held in 83 ITR 223 and moreover the documents in the shape of order of BIFR being relied upon by the assessee are the orders passed by statutory authority, therefore we admit the document at serial no.22 at page 114 to 118 to be read as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 and thus partly allowed the application fil…

Asst CIT 12(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd ( Formlery M.S, Tcs Business Transformation Solution Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, the plea of assessee under rule 27 of the Tribunal

ITA 6648/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/S Tcs Payer Unit, Business Transformation Centre-1 28Th Floor, World Vs. Solutions Ltd.) Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Sjm Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai-400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 Pan No.Aacp8925G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…sue on grounds decided against him under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as decided in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Delhi) and also of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom), which was dealing with the case of rights of the respondent to defend the order appealed against and held that the respondent would be entitled to raise new ground in defense of the order appealed against, provided it does not necessitate any other evidences to be recorded, the nature of which would not only be defense to the appeal itself,…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. Petrotech, New Delhi

ITA 6259/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

For Appellant: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11hSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…DDIT ( Exemption) VPetrotech ITA No 6259/ Del/2012 A Y 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DDIT(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-II, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN:AAAAP0965E (Appellant) (Respondent ) Revenue by : Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR Assessee by: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv Sh. VK Sabharwal, Adv Date of Hearing 05/04/2017 Date of pronouncement 11/04/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This…

ACIT, Karnal vs. M/S Galaxy Global Educational Trsut, Kurukshetra

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2652/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri. C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Galaxy Global Educational Trust Central Circle Village Dinarpur Vs. Karnal Kurukshetra

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Jain
Section 11Section 13Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…building the balance sheet drawn subsequent to search clearly established the fact of unexplained investment which attracts provisions of section 69C of the Act. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.R. Banisi vs. CIT 83 ITR 223 (Bombay), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Moolchand Khairatiram Tust vs. DIT (E) reported as (2015) 59 taxman.com 398 (Del.) and order of ITAT Mumbai Bench “B” in the case of the Trustees, B.N. Gamadia Parsi vs. ADIT (E) reported as (2002) 77 TTJ 274 the Ld. DR submitted that the Revenue can take alternate plea for supporting action of…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin Narendra Lodha, Mumbai

ITA 6584/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh: (A.Y : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri J.G. AroraFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…to justify the existence of relevant facts that are required for the purpose of adjudicating the said plea. The learned representative placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.R. Bamasi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 83 ITR 223 (Bom.) and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gilbert & Barker, 111 ITR 529 (Bom) to contend that in an appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondent is entitled to raise a plea challenging the legal validity of the Assessing Officer’s assessment order in order to seek dismissal of the appeal of Revenue. 6. On this aspect of the matter, the ld. DR has…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Siemes Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7181/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…The management fess has been earned by the assessee in the course of carrying on its business, therefore, the same is assessable as business income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co. USA, 111 ITR 529 (Bom). Thus, the income received by the assessee in the form on interest of staff loan, interest on overdue outstanding and management fees are in the nature of business income. Accordingly, we direct the AO to treat all these three income as income from business. In respect of the miscellaneous income of Rs.2,45,63,111/-, since no detail was fil…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…ecord. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Accra Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – 263 CTR 48 (Bom.); ii) Ram Narain & Sons Pvt. Ltd. – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); iii) Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. CIT – 77 ITR 253 (S.C); iv) B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT – 83 ITR 223 (Bom.); v ) CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd. – 66 ITR 710 (S.C); 32. The learned CIT(DR), however, opposed the above request made on behalf of the assessee. 33. Considering the above submissions, we find that the plea raised is legal in nature and is in furtherance to the issue of validity of the action of the Assessing Officer in treating…

C.K. Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 550/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’ BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.550/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri C.K. Ramakrishna, No.525/B, 9th Cross, 7th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082 …. Appellant. PAN AAPPR 3523E Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.A. Respondent By : Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 25.6.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 30.7.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed…