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.

Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1761/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1761/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Metal One Corporation India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Sood Tower, 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aafcm1225 Vs The Dcit, Circle-16(2), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Sr.Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92F

…t issue is whether the claim which has not been made in the Return of income, can the same be allowed in the hands of the assessee, if subsequently raised during the assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del.) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt.ltd. 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has held that “even if a claim made by assessee-company does not form part of original return or even revised return”, the same is to be allowed in accordance with law. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the claim of de…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…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…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…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…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Ltd Vs CIT (229 ITR 383)& Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688)and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Limited (252 CTR 151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional deprecia…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Ltd Vs CIT (229 ITR 383)& Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688)and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Limited (252 CTR 151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional deprecia…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Ltd Vs CIT (229 ITR 383)& Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688)and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Limited (252 CTR 151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional deprecia…

Baring Pvt. Equity Partners (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee on these grounds is allowed for

ITA 5862/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5862/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Baring Pvt. Equity Partners Dcit (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-4(1) A-16/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi.

…ssment year under appeal. 7. Considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for assessee, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 held as under: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arose in the matter and for the just decision of the case. There was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.” Baring Pvt. Equity Partners (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ I.T.A.N…

Deepa Sachin Sankhe, Thane vs. ITO WD 1, Palghar

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

ITA 5784/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deepa Sachin Sankhe Income Tax Officer, Ward- C/O M N Nandgaonkar, Vs. 1, Bidco Road, Palghar Chartered Accountant, West-401608. 1, Chandralok, Veer Savarkarm Marg, Tembhi Naka, Thane West-400601. Pan No. Awdps2312J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45Section 48Section 50C

…e Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. In CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), a new claim was made by the assessee by filing an additional ground before the Tribunal, which was allowed by it. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the principal ground taken by the Revenue in the appeal was that if no claim for deduction of the amount was made in the return of income, then deduction wou…

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.407/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35ASection 37(1)

…e CIT(A) has power to consider additional claims which were not made in the return of income and not raised before the A.O. For similar proposition, the appellant relied on decisions of Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 & of ITAT Pune in the case of Jain irrigation Systems Ltd. ITA No.1319/PN/2009 dated 30.01.2012. In view of the decisions relied upon by the appellant, the additional claim of appellant is being admitted for adjudication. During the appellate proceedings for AY 2011-12 identical issue of raising fresh claim of tax credit u/s.90/91 withheld by Heri…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5026/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4913/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

M/S. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1944/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

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

ITA 7637/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

Arivent Technologies Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1308/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Del) has explained that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the fresh claim raised for the first time and has also 35 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 explained the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we adjudicate the claim of the…

ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1964/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

…it was held as under: '7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra),decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in the following words:— "In Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the A ITA 261/200…

Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1532/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

…it was held as under: '7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra),decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in the following words:— "In Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the A ITA 261/200…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 468/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Indore Education & (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaati3186K

Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…[ITA No.468/Ind/2018] [M/s. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT M/s. Indore Education and (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATI3186K Appellant by Shri S.S. Mantri, D.R. Respondent by Shri C.S. Padlia, A.R. Date of Hearing: 17.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhanuka Agritech Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 3837/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nager, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Bimal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 155J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3837/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2011-2012 The ACIT, Central Circle-2, M/s. Dhanuka Agritech Room No.363, 3rd Floor, Ltd., 861-862, Dhanuka vs., E-2, ARA Centre, House, Joshi Road, Karol Jhandewalan Extension, Bagh, Delhi – 110 005. New Delhi – 110 055. PAN AAACD0105G (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Rakhi Bimal, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : Shri S.S. Nager, C.A. Date of Hearing : 07.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by…

Income Tax Officer- 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Su-Sampada, Indore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

Section 139(5)Section 80I

…1 Su-Sampada IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2011-12 ITO-5(1), Indore :: Appellant Vs M/s. Su-Sampada, Indore PAN – AAUFS 5259 B :: Respondent Assessee by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Respondent by Shri Prakash Jain and Shri V.K. Jhavar, CAs Date of hearing 24.09.2019 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM The above appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore, dated 07.10.2016. There is delay of 479 days in filing the appeal by the Reven…