C.K. Gopinath v. CIT

Ritika Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Vcentral Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2013-14

…as taxed, the question of its non-taxability should be taken to have been considered by the ITO though no such claim had been made before him by the assessee. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C.K. Gopinathan Vs CIT [20031 127 Taxman 416 (KeralaV/2003) 260 ITR 213 (Kerala) held that since assessee had not raised alternate contention that credits made in his books should be treated as income of earlier years before Assessing Officer or first appellate authority, he should not be allowed to raise such contention before second appellate authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT […

Brijwasi Builders (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

…propriate forum to claim higher deduction was the Assessing Officer only. The 6 ITA No.355/Del./2017 appellate authority could grant relief only to the extent it was declined unjustifiably by the lower authority. Further, in the case of C.K. Gopinath vs CIT (260 ITR 213) Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that. when the assessee had not chosen to take the alternative contention Before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal) and the Tribunal were right in holding that the question could not be considered at that stage. The addition was therefore, held justified 4.7 The plea now taken by the…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

…hat assessee has failed to substantiate facts of this case are identical to facts of judgments in case of National thermal Power Corp. He further relied upon several decisions of honourable courts to support his contentions. He relied on CK Gopinathan vs. CIT 260 ITR 213 and Ultratech Cements Ltd vs additional Commissioner of income tax 2017 – TIOL – 785 – HC – BOM – IT and Addl CIT vs Gurjargravurs (p) Ltd 111 ITR 1 (SC). He further submitted that penalty proceedings were properly initiated and proper so cause notice was issued to assessee. He submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inac…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Feed Mills (228 ITR 386, 94 Taxman 405), grievance can be raised against appellate authority. Further reference can be made to Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment in the case of C.K. Gopinath vs CIT (260 ITR 213), where it was held that alternative plea (like that the property was held by her in trust etc.) not raised before AO cannot be considered in appeal. Law is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in Chevalier I Iyyappan v. Dharmodahyam Co. {AIR 1966 SC 1017}, that a party cannot change its stand and make a new case at appellate stage which was…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Feed Mills (228 ITR 386, 94 Taxman 405), grievance can be raised against appellate authority. Further reference can be made to Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment in the case of C.K. Gopinath vs CIT (260 ITR 213), where it was held that alternative plea (like that the property was held by her in trust etc.) not raised before AO cannot be considered in appeal. Law is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in Chevalier I Iyyappan v. Dharmodahyam Co. {AIR 1966 SC 1017}, that a party cannot change its stand and make a new case at appellate stage which was…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Feed Mills (228 ITR 386, 94 Taxman 405), grievance can be raised against appellate authority. Further reference can be made to Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment in the case of C.K. Gopinath vs CIT (260 ITR 213), where it was held that alternative plea (like that the property was held by her in trust etc.) not raised before AO cannot be considered in appeal. Law is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in Chevalier I Iyyappan v. Dharmodahyam Co. {AIR 1966 SC 1017}, that a party cannot change its stand and make a new case at appellate stage which was…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI 1 BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6947/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T A-15, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1 Central Circle - 03 New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCL 1152 E I.T.A.No. 7060/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Sunny Infra Projects Ltd Vs. The CIT(A) - XXVI A-15, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1 Delhi Delhi PAN: AAECS 3929 B I.T.A. No. 6948/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T A-15, Ashok Viha…