CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

306 ITR 42High Court2008#215 most cited

What is CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. authority for?

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

344

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. · additional claim · revised computation of income · revised return not filed · assessment proceedings · additional grounds of appeal · section 139(1) · section 143(3) · section 254 · Goetz India Ltd.

Also reported as

172 Taxmann 258

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 132Section 254

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…eturn. However, that decision itself is limited to the power of the Assessing Officer and does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of appellate authorities. 5.12. More importantly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 42 held that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the assessee’s claim even though the same had not been made in the return. The Court recognized that there is no prohibition on appellate authorities considering a legal claim arising from facts already on record. Therefore, an absolute proposition that a claim made through a note or otherwise c…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…eturn. However, that decision itself is limited to the power of the Assessing Officer and does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of appellate authorities. 5.12. More importantly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 42 held that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the assessee’s claim even though the same had not been made in the return. The Court recognized that there is no prohibition on appellate authorities considering a legal claim arising from facts already on record. Therefore, an absolute proposition that a claim made through a note or otherwise c…

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 9/DDN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

…be admitted for adjudication. He placed reliance on the following judgements:- Sime Darby Engineering SDN BHD vs.DCIT (i) CIT vs. Nellippan [1967] 66ITR 722(SC) (ii) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Lts. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity of the…

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDNBHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

…be admitted for adjudication. He placed reliance on the following judgements:- Sime Darby Engineering SDN BHD vs.DCIT (i) CIT vs. Nellippan [1967] 66ITR 722(SC) (ii) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Lts. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity of the…

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 7616/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

…be admitted for adjudication. He placed reliance on the following judgements:- Sime Darby Engineering SDN BHD vs.DCIT (i) CIT vs. Nellippan [1967] 66ITR 722(SC) (ii) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Lts. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity of the…

INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST CONFEDERATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands allowed accordingly

ITA/18/2026HC Delhi22 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80G

…s the duty of the appellate authorities to assist taxpayers in securing legitimate reliefs and not be fettered by mere technicalities. This view stands affirmed in the judgment rendered by this Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., reported in (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del) wherein it was held that there is no bar on the appellate authorities to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the return. A reference was also made to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), wherein it was held that appellate aut…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI, DELHI vs. CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

…t observations made by the coordinate bench of this court, which are apposite, are extracted hereafter: "5. The ITAT has agreed the reasoning given by the CIT (Appeals) and has relied upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.). In the said case Delhi High Court has referred to the powers of the appellate forum and the C.O. No.159/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited decisions of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 238 I…

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2330/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

…t observations made by the coordinate bench of this court, which are apposite, are extracted hereafter: "5. The ITAT has agreed the reasoning given by the CIT (Appeals) and has relied upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.). In the said case Delhi High Court has referred to the powers of the appellate forum and the C.O. No.159/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited decisions of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 238 I…

M. SONS GEMS N JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2015-16] M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Acit Pvt. Ltd. 4852/24, First Floor, Central Circle – 20 Near Sanjivan Hospital Vs New Delhi Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan-Aadcm9406A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 251Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

…appellant assessee and the impugned loss was claimed by way of revised computation of income filed during assessment proceedings. The reliance of appellant assessee on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 has been found to be thus distinguished on facts. The assessee therefore shall not be entitled for the claim of the impugned business loss of Rs.44,15,227/-. Ground of appeal no.7 raised by the assessee is therefore dismissed. 18. Ground of appeal no. 8 pertains to disallowance made by the ld. AO u/s 43B of the Act. We have noted that the ld. AO…

HEMANT DHAWAN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-58(3), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 5625/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Hemant Dhawan, Vs. Ito, Ward 58 (3), D-371, Second Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Afppd1587F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Rejected The Plea Of The Assessee That Assessee Has Claimed Certain Legal Claim In Revised Return Of Income Filed Before The Assessing Officer. However, As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Goetze (India)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR

…d that though the AO was not empowered to entertain Revised Computation of Income in the absence of Revised ITR yet there is no prohibition on the power of the Tribunal. Ld. AR also relied upon Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (306 ITR 42) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pruthvi Brokers of show holding 349 ITR 336, for such proposition. We find force in such arrangement advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee and accordingly admit the Revised Computation of Income (which was filed by assessee alongwith his letter as Appendix-5, during the course of assessment proceedings on 20.01.2…

GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

…ous legal citations where Courts have held that the AO is duty bound to grant benefits and reliefs during assessment, even if not claimed in the return of income by the assessee. 1. CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) (b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the CIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter alia, f…

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…ion on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case as under: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held as under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383, where the Supreme Court observed that— ". . .The…

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…ion on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case as under: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held as under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383, where the Supreme Court observed that— ". . .The…

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…ion on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case as under: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held as under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383, where the Supreme Court observed that— ". . .The…

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…any event, there is no bar on the jurisdiction of appellate authorities to entertain new claim placing reliance on CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del.). On merits, he submits that notwithstanding the provisions of section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR…

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…any event, there is no bar on the jurisdiction of appellate authorities to entertain new claim placing reliance on CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del.). On merits, he submits that notwithstanding the provisions of section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR…

DR.RANGASAMY SUDHA,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1007/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Income-Tax Officer, Dr. Rangasamy Sudha, 448, Maragathavalli Hospital, Vs. Ward 1(1), Erode. E.V.N. Road, Erode – 638 009. [Pan:Ajcps-0749-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Manickasundaram, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. Manickasundaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

…d Ramco :-3-: ITA. Nos:1007/Chny/2025 Cements Ltd. v DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad.), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.), and the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v DCIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai) to arrive at the above conclusion. In all these decisions, the consistent view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts, is that an assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3183/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…legal citations where Courts have held that the AO is duty\nbound to grant benefits and reliefs during assessment, even if\nnot claimed in the return of income by the assessee.\n1. CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56 (SC)\n2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del)\n3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC)\n4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC)\n5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC)\n6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del)\n\n(b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the\nCIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…legal citations where Courts have held that the AO is duty\nbound to grant benefits and reliefs during assessment, even if\nnot claimed in the return of income by the assessee.\n1. CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56 (SC)\n2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del)\n3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC)\n4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC)\n5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC)\n6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del)\n\n(b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the\nCIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3181/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…legal citations where Courts have held that the AO is duty\nbound to grant benefits and reliefs during assessment, even if\nnot claimed in the return of income by the assessee.\n1. CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56 (SC)\n2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del)\n3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC)\n4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC)\n5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC)\n6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del)\n(b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the\nCIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter a…

Showing 1–20 of 344 · Page 1 of 18

...