CIT v. Bandaru Sanyasi Raju

145 ITR 255High Court1984#8373 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 254 Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bandaru Sanyasi Raju

MR. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…der u/s 143(3)/254, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction under the law, in set-aside proceedings, the AO has the jurisdiction only in respect of those issues which were before the ITAT and he cannot reexamine/examine the issues which were not before the ITAT. - 145 ITR 255 (All), S.P. Kochhar vs. ITO - 40 ITR 618 (SC), Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. ITO - ITA No.2038(Mds)/2011, M/s Ambattur Flats vs. ITO dated 22nd May, 2012. 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise, the initiation of penalty proceedings in fresh assessment proceedings in respect of amount of Rs.58,85,666/- amounts to review/revisit of own or…

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-4, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2588/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

…A No. 2588/Bang/2019 adjustment on account of AMP expenses was never before this Tribunal in the original appeal. 4.2 In support of the above, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of S. P. Kochhar v. Income Tax Officer [1984] 145 ITR 255 (ALL), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the powers of the Tribunal are restricted to the grounds of appeal raised before it. It was further held that during the set- aside proceedings, the powers of the Ld.AO are restricted to the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal and that the AO cannot ask questions on the issues which we…

M/S K.M. KHADIM & CO.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…relied on the series of decisions namely in defense of his arguments: i) Basudeo Prasad Agarwalla vs. ITO & Ors 180 ITR 388 (Cal) ii) CIT vs. V. Hope Textiles Ltd. 225 ITR 993 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Lal Chand Agarwal 259 ITR 497 (Raj.) iv) S.P. Kocher vs. ITO 145 ITR 255 (All.) The Ld. A.R. therefore argued that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT in second round treating the assessment order passed pursuant to the direction by the Ld. PCIT in the first round in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The ld AR contended that the order passed pursuant to first order…

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 34/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

…ao& Co. vs. AAC (1959) 35 ITR 673 (AP), decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High court in the case of Katihar Jute Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 861 (Cal), decision of Allahabad High court in the case of S.P. Kochhar vs. ITO (1983) 37 CTR (All) 49 (1984) 145 ITR 255 (Ail), Sri Vindhya Vasini Prasad Gupta vs. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 253 (Art) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hope Textiles Ltd. 09g7) 143 CTR (MP) 33 . (1997) 22s ITR 993 (MP). " 21. Further, this Tribunal had set aside the order on the limited issue to the Ld. AO. to verify whether any of the foreign…

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 33/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254

…djudication of the issue in the set-aside proceedings is limited to the extent of the direction issued by the higher forum. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of S.P Kochhar vs. ITO reported in 145 ITR 255, where it was held as under: The provisions of sections 251 and 254(1) as well as the various judicial pronouncements make it clear that the powers of the AAC are wider than those of the Tribunal. The AAC, while hearing an appeal under section 251 can examine all matters covered by the assessment order and correct the assessment in respect of al…

SONI SONU MIRCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1286/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The A.O. is bound to follow the directions of the Tribunal. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of S.P. Kochhar 33 ITA.No.1286/Del./2020 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, New Delhi. vs., ITO 145 ITR 255 [All.] and Shri Vindhya Basini Prasad Gupta vs., Commissioner of Income Tax 186 ITR 253 [All.], Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Katihar Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd., vs., Commissioner of Income Tax 120 ITR 861 [Cal.]. Considering the above, it is clear that when the parties have allowed the earlier Order of the Tribunal to become final, it…

MIRAH HOSPITALITY & FOOD SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…inal assessment. In remand proceedings pursuant to order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make the said adjustment 1. 234 ITR 548 (Bom.) MurlidharBhagwandas v. CIT 2. 19 ITR(Trib) 126 (Mum. - Trib.) Computree Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 3. 145 ITR 255 (All.) S. P. Kochhar v. ITO 4. 186 ITR 253 (All) Sri Vindhya Vasini Prasad Gupta v. CIT 5. 115 taxmann.com 288 (Guj.) Engineering Professional Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 6. 268 Taxman 213 (Madras) Neeta Suneel Shah Do. Ramesh Bhai Doshi v. ITO 7. 213 ITR 502 (Madras), Raja DV Seetharamaya v. WTO 8. Furthermore, learned Counsel of the assessee also fi…

M/S CHANDRIKA INVESTMENTS ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1455/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 154Section 24ASection 288B

…ds as follows:- ITA Nos. 1454 & 1455/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 7 “Instruction No: 1725 Date of Issue: 22/8/1986 Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts have in their judgements in CIT Vs. Bandaru Sanyasi Raju (1981) 127 ITR 453 (AP) and S.P. Kocher Vs. ITO (1984) 145 ITR 255 (Alld) held that first appellate authorities have power to set aside assessments partially by deciding some of the points in appeal before them and remanding the case to the assessing officer for fresh assessment on other points. It is found that in giving appeal effect to such appellate orders as partially set aside assessment orders different…

M/S CHANDRIKA INVESTMENTS ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1454/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 154Section 24ASection 288B

M/S. OMNIGLOBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4343/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4343/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…law, that DRP cannot apply new filter in set aside proceedings. In this regard, he placed reliance in the cases of Assessment Year-2006-07 MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (309 ITR 434, Paper Products Limited vs. CIT [(2007) SCC 352 and S. P. Kochar vs. ITO (145 ITR 255). He stressed that the DRP in the second round cannot apply a new filter in the set aside proceedings. The learned AR for the assessee also fairly pointed out that the TPO may look into the functionality of the 05 concerns which were rejected by the DRP by modifying the turnover filter. The DRP in the second round had also rejected the assessee…

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnsh Sainiita No. 2705/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: G.C.Srivastava, Adv. Sh. Suvinay Dash, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR

…ed law that when particular matter is remanded to assessing officer on limited issue, the jurisdiction 6 of the AO is confined to such issue only. In support of above proposition of law, I rely upon decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of S.P. Cochar 145 ITR 255, decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Vidhyavasni Gupta 186 ITR 253 and decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kathiar Jute Mills 120 ITR 86. Since, in the present case the Tribunal restored the issue of expenses of Rs. 28,70,532/- only to the AO vide order dated 13th October, 2016, the assessing officer should have confine…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

ITTA/160/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 144Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 160 / 2008 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus Shri Jugal Kishore Garg ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 170 / 2008 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus Shri Jugal Kishore Garg Jaipur ----Respondent ____________________________________________________…