CIT v. B.P. Sherafudin

87 Taxmann.com 330High Court2017#3435 most cited

What is CIT v. B.P. Sherafudin authority for?

The powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 251 to enhance an assessment do not extend to displacing powers under sections 147, 148, and 263, and cannot be used to introduce a new source of income.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.P. Sherafudin · section 251 · section 147 · section 148 · section 263 · Commissioner Appeals powers · enhance assessment · new source of income

Also reported as

399 ITR 524

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 115-OSection 115QSection 131Section 132Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 245hasection 245section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)section 251section 24commissioner (appeals)section 263section 26assistant commissionerincriminating materialsection 25

Judgments citing CIT v. B.P. Sherafudin

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE, HYDREABAD

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A" BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.382/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad PAN ADYPM2116L (Appellant) The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), VS. Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) ITA.No.472/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), VS. Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad PAN ADYPM2116L (Respondent) For Assessee : CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date…

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.382/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy The ACIT, Manne, Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4), PAN ADYPM2116L vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.472/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The ACIT, Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy Central Circle-2(4), Manne, Hyderabad Hyderabad. Telangana. vs. PAN ADYPM2116L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CI…

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

…. He relied on the following case law :- (i) Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT 179 ITD 310; (ii) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443; (iii) CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556; (iv) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864; (v) CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 399 ITR 524 (Ker); (vi) Nababharat Shiksha Parishad vs. DCIT in ITA No.163/CTK/2015 dated 11 October 2017; (vii) Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. ITO 171 ITD 116; (viii) Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd. vs. CIT6 86 taxmann.com 35; (ix) Cairn India Ltd. vs. DIT (IT) 87 taxmann.com 310 (Madras); (x) J.T. (India) Exports and Anr. Vs. UOI 262 ITR 269 (FB) (Del.). 13. With regard…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI vs. T RAMA SUBBA REDDY , ADONI

ITA 1133/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1133/Hyd/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Sri T. Rama Subba Reddy, Ward 1, Adoni. Vs. D.No.16-54/7-B, Parvathapuram Road, Adoni-518 301 PAN ADSPT8833F (Appellant) (Respondent) धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue by:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of 10/06/2024 hearing: घोर्णा की 28/06/2024 तारीख/Pronouncement: आदेश/…

PULPATTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2, TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sh.K. Rishal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(1)

…st appellate authority, as clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is qua an additional source of income(CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC)), absent in the instant case. The assessee’s reliance on the decision in CIT v. B.P.Sherafudin [2017] 399 ITR 524 (Ker) is misplaced; the same being with reference to a new source of income. 3.4 We, in view of the foregoing, find no merit in the asseessee’s case and, accordingly, no reason to interfere. We decide accordingly. 4 Pulpatta Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on August 31, 202…

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

…enhanced by the learned CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a). 10. The words enhance the assessment' are confined to the assessment reached through a particular process. It can not be extended in a way the Ld CIT (A) had done it. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in B.P. Sherafudin (399 ITR 524) in Para 51 recorded- "the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say section 147,148 and 263 of the Act". 14 Smt. Aruna Chaudhary 11. As regards the Ld CIT (A)'s remark relating to purchase of agricultural land at Village Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad throug…

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…dcon Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [87 ITR (Trib) 505 ] [Page 725-747 of PB No. 4]. 7.3. In the similar manner, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662 of PB No.3] 7.4. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the en…

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…dcon Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [87 ITR (Trib) 505 ] [Page 725-747 of PB No. 4]. 7.3. In the similar manner, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662 of PB No.3] 7.4. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the en…

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

For Appellant: Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 46/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCT 7285 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1194/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCT 7285 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) jk…

SARAVANA REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 697/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.696 & 697/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2013-14 ) M/S. Saravana Realty Pvt.Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Kgs Corporate House, Income Tax, 63, Kamaraj Avenue Road 1St Street, Central Circle-3(4) Adyar,Chennai-600 020. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aakcs0474R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 251(1)(b)Section 251o

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.696 & 697/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2013-14 ) M/s. Saravana Realty Pvt.Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of KGS Corporate House, Income Tax, 63, Kamaraj Avenue Road 1st Street, Central Circle-3(4) Adyar,Chennai-600 020. Chennai-600 034. PAN: AAKCS0474R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. R.Meenakshi Sundaram, अपीलाथ"…

DHARAM BIR SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7956/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari , AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 251Section 69

…power to the ld. CIT(A) for enhancement, but at the same time, the same cannot be considered for enhancing income under a new source of income. 9. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of B.P. Sherafudin 399 ITR 524 and on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that even the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner is not dated and, therefore, it is not known whether the approval was granted before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. Per c…

MANMOHANSINGH S. RANAWAT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5393/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69

…addition which is not arising out of the sources/additions as discussed/referred in the assessment order. In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del-HC) 1. 2. CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 87 Taxmann.com 330 (Ker-HC) 3. CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del-HC) 4. CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 5 Taxman 84 (MP-HC) 5. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 64Taxman215(Raj-HC) 6. CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) (decision of Bom-HC (344 ITR 342) 7. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 8. Zuberi Enginnering Compan…

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…ITR 556 (Delhi) 5. CIT vs. Sardari Lai & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) 6. CIT vs Changanlal Kailas & Co. 19 Taxmann 536 (Mad) 7. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 197 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) 8. CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta) 9. CIT vs. BP Sherafuddin 399 ITR 524 (Kerela) 22. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that transactions entered into by two sister concerns cannot be a valid ground for addition :- 1. ITA No. 596/Kol/2011 M/s Pluto Finance (P) Ltd 2. ITA No. 1840/Mum/2005 Shri Jayesh P. Choksi v. ACIT 3. Zaheer Mauritius v. DIT (IT) 270 CTR 244 (Del) 4. ITA No. 729/Del/2011 M/s Conso…

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…ITR 556 (Delhi) 5. CIT vs. Sardari Lai & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) 6. CIT vs Changanlal Kailas & Co. 19 Taxmann 536 (Mad) 7. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 197 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) 8. CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta) 9. CIT vs. BP Sherafuddin 399 ITR 524 (Kerela) 22. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that transactions entered into by two sister concerns cannot be a valid ground for addition :- 1. ITA No. 596/Kol/2011 M/s Pluto Finance (P) Ltd 2. ITA No. 1840/Mum/2005 Shri Jayesh P. Choksi v. ACIT 3. Zaheer Mauritius v. DIT (IT) 270 CTR 244 (Del) 4. ITA No. 729/Del/2011 M/s Conso…

MANJIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2667/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [Pan : Aaecm 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [PAN : AAECM 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, JCIT, Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : Ap…

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…rn of income and nor in the assessment proceedings or assessment orders for all these years; Therefore, beyond the scope of provision of section 251 of the act. 16. The Honourable Kerala High court has considered all the divergent views on the issue in [2017] 399 ITR 524 in CIT V B P Sherafudin and held as under :- “43. Now, we may examine the authorities that also have dealt with the powers of the appellate authority but seem to have taken a divergent path. 44. In CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that it is only the assess…

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…rn of income and nor in the assessment proceedings or assessment orders for all these years; Therefore, beyond the scope of provision of section 251 of the act. 16. The Honourable Kerala High court has considered all the divergent views on the issue in [2017] 399 ITR 524 in CIT V B P Sherafudin and held as under :- “43. Now, we may examine the authorities that also have dealt with the powers of the appellate authority but seem to have taken a divergent path. 44. In CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that it is only the assess…

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. B.P. Sherafudin (87 Taxmann.com 330) — Cited in 35 Judgments | BharatTax