Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

208 ITR 740High Court1994#3787 most cited

What is Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income authority for?

An additional plea that fundamentally alters the case's original presentation before the Assessing Officer, CIT(Appeals), or Tribunal is not permitted at the appellate stage.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT · 208 ITR 740 · new plea in appeal · additional ground · change complexion of case · Assessing Officer · CIT(Appeals) · Tribunal

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35ABBSection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80lacompensatory interestsection 35abbsection 80lsection 72asection 23(4)section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49warrant of authorisationcarry forward of lossessection 72

Judgments citing Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…se for the first time before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not vested with power of enhancement or to withdraw relief granted by the assessing authority [refer MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC), Indian Steel & Wire Products Lid, vs. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.), Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad)- Revenue's SLP dismissed). 57.2 Be that as it may, interest is for delay in payment of annual licence fee as per the terms of the agreement entered into with MIB. The compensatory interest does not result in any capital asset or right coming into existence; the said i…

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…se for the first time before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not vested with power of enhancement or to withdraw relief granted by the assessing authority [refer MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC), Indian Steel & Wire Products Lid, vs. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.), Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad)- Revenue's SLP dismissed). 57.2 Be that as it may, interest is for delay in payment of annual licence fee as per the terms of the agreement entered into with MIB. The compensatory interest does not result in any capital asset or right coming into existence; the said i…

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…se for the first time before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not vested with power of enhancement or to withdraw relief granted by the assessing authority [refer MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC), Indian Steel & Wire Products Lid, vs. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.), Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad)- Revenue's SLP dismissed). 57.2 Be that as it may, interest is for delay in payment of annual licence fee as per the terms of the agreement entered into with MIB. The compensatory interest does not result in any capital asset or right coming into existence; the said i…

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…se for the first time before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not vested with power of enhancement or to withdraw relief granted by the assessing authority [refer MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC), Indian Steel & Wire Products Lid, vs. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.), Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad)- Revenue's SLP dismissed). 57.2 Be that as it may, interest is for delay in payment of annual licence fee as per the terms of the agreement entered into with MIB. The compensatory interest does not result in any capital asset or right coming into existence; the said i…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…re ITAT and in complete contradiction to the stance before AO or CIT(A), it can't be admitted as additional evidence at this stage. ITAT rules also do not provide for the same.  Reliance is placed on the decision of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal).  Besides the above submissions, the orders of AO and ld. CIT(A) are strongly relied upon. In view of the above discussion, there is sufficient incriminating material which clearly shows continuous flow of cash including receipts and payments. Since the above cash transactions are not recorded in the books of account the same have been rig…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2091/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…re ITAT and in complete contradiction to the stance before AO or CIT(A), it can't be admitted as additional evidence at this stage. ITAT rules also do not provide for the same.  Reliance is placed on the decision of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal).  Besides the above submissions, the orders of AO and ld. CIT(A) are strongly relied upon. In view of the above discussion, there is sufficient incriminating material which clearly shows continuous flow of cash including receipts and payments. Since the above cash transactions are not recorded in the books of account the same have been rig…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2090/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…re ITAT and in complete contradiction to the stance before AO or CIT(A), it can't be admitted as additional evidence at this stage. ITAT rules also do not provide for the same.  Reliance is placed on the decision of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal).  Besides the above submissions, the orders of AO and ld. CIT(A) are strongly relied upon. In view of the above discussion, there is sufficient incriminating material which clearly shows continuous flow of cash including receipts and payments. Since the above cash transactions are not recorded in the books of account the same have been rig…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

Fortis Hospitals Ltd vs. ACIT Circle 9(2) New Delhi

ITA-132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…essee by the Assessing Officer. He further places reliance on: 2021:DHC:2240-DB ITA 132/2021 Page 8 of 12 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd.…

Fortis Hospitals Ltd

ITA/132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…essee by the Assessing Officer. He further places reliance on: 2021:DHC:2240-DB ITA 132/2021 Page 8 of 12 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd.…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6807/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3752/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3750/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3749/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3748/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…ea for the first time for which no factual foundation has been laid before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals)." 11. Identical is the view held by the Hon'ble High Court Of Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 208 ITR 740 (CAL.)wherein it is held that "such additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as 6 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. originally brought before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in second appeal is not permissible to he raised at the stage of hearing." We…

Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income (208 ITR 740) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax