CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

306 ITR 42High Court2008#219 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.

349

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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
Read the full judgment

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.

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Chhotaray a/w
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…) 229 ITR 383 (SC) (ii). PCIT (Central-1) vs. Grasim Industries Ltd( (2018) 256 TAXMAN 0079 (Bombay) (iii). CIT (Central)- 1 v. Pruthi Brokers and Shareholders Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) 5 Balaji TrustITA no.5139/Mum./2017 8. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short “A.R”) for the assessee, Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate vehemently objected to the admission of the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal as was sought by the department. Objecting to the additional ground of appeal no. 1, it was subm…

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

…claiming market development/advertisement expenses raised by the assessee before 9 appellate fora being bona fide required to be considered on merit. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that there is no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which, according to the Tribunal, arises in the matter for the just decision of the case. Relying on various other decisions placed in the paper book, he submitted that the additional…

Navodaya Education Trust, Raichur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

…ich shall assist it to discharge its functions in the interest of justice and equity, provided there is no deliberate and mala fide omission by the appellant. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) CIF v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del.) b) Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) 40. In light of the discussion as above, it is submitted that the CPC, Bengaluru made the impugned adjustment in its intimation u/s 143(1), erroneously and as such the same was rectifiable as per the provisions of section 154. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the the same and rejecting th…

Gmr Infrastructure Limited vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/1036/2017HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.1036 OF 2017 BETWEEN: GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED NO.25/1, SKIP HOUSE MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. G. KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.,) AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held…

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/762/2017HC Karnataka15 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260A

…ATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323, 'CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS P. LTD', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOM.) AND 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the additional claim for allowance of ESOP was neither made before the Assessing Officer nor before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is further submitted that an additional ground can be raised before the appellate authority provided the assessee is…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…ntertain an additional ground as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra). For the aforesaid proposition the Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 and the decision of the Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd vs. DCIT: 137 ITD 26. 60.0.0 We have heard both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the entire facts relating to the aforesaid claim were before the AO and after examining the same, the AO did not dispute the a…

International Tractors Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) & Anr

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/35/2019HC Delhi07 Apr 2021
Section 250(4)Section 80J

…ervations 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 Vs. 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 decisions of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 238 ITR 268, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner…

M/S. Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2064/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 37Section 9C

…- INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI” BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 SRF Limited, DCIT, Block-C, Unitech Crest, Circle 9(1), Vs. Greenwood City, Sector-45, New Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 003 PAN AAACS0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CA Department by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2021 Date of 06/04/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 23.01.2014 passed by Ld. Commissio…

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2555/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2555/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Post Box No.7, Central Bank Road, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaan0509L बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Acit Ahmednagar Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances In Not Allowing Claims Made During The Course Of Hearing For Exempted Income Of Dividend Of Rs. 1487135/- & Expenses Debited To P & L A/C On Account Of Depreciation On Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- To Be Allowed As Exempted Income As Well As Allowable Expenses & The Same Were Also Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii Pune. 2. That Your Appellant Prays That He May Be Allowed To Add, To Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 41(1)

….” 11. To the same effect, the following are decisions of the various Hon’ble High Courts :- (i) PCIT vs. Western India Shipyard Ltd., 379 ITR 289 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., 360 ITR 682 (Delhi); (iii) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Delhi); (iv) Influence vs. CIT, 55 Taxman 192 (Delhi); 5 PCIT vs. E-Funds International India (P.) Ltd., 379 ITR 292 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd., 124 taxman 510 (Karnataka); (vii) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., 109 taxman 93 (Calcutta); (viii) CIT vs. Ramco International, 332 ITR 306 (P&H); (ix) CIT vs. Arvind Produc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…the case of CIT Vs. Milton Laminates Ltd. (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 249 have held that while giving effect to order of CIT(A) A.O con compute income lower than that returned. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (2008) 306 ITR 42 has also held that the decision of Honourable Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. was limited to the power of the AO not to entertain claim for deduction, otherwise then by revised return and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. The Honourable Supreme Court in the cose of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 229 ITR 383 h…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…the case of CIT Vs. Milton Laminates Ltd. (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 249 have held that while giving effect to order of CIT(A) A.O con compute income lower than that returned. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (2008) 306 ITR 42 has also held that the decision of Honourable Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. was limited to the power of the AO not to entertain claim for deduction, otherwise then by revised return and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. The Honourable Supreme Court in the cose of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 229 ITR 383 h…

The Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Karnataka State Co Operative

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/466/2016HC Karnataka03 Mar 2021

Bench: Cit(A) Is Entertain Able Even When The Same Is Not Claimed In Original Return Of Income Nor The Assessee

Section 10Section 138(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 23CSection 260Section 260ASection 80P

…TD. VS. CIT', (2021) 349 ITR 404 (BOM.), 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHERS', (2004) 269 ITR 1 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. PRUTHV BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD.', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL), 'CIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD.', (2010) 328 ITR 338 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.', (2014) 360 ITR 682 (DEL.), 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. 10 LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), 'RAJESHWARI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT', (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 463 (KAR.). 7. We have considered the submissi…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Ho…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Ho…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Ho…