How many judgments cite CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.?

349 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (306 ITR 42), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

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 147 Section 153A Section 153C Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 132 Section 254

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 18 section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

Smt. Mamta Singh, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 306/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 2Section 45

…Relaince is placed on following decisions ------ . a} CIT V/s Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders Pvt Ltd (2012) 3491TR 336 (Annexure D). b)Pr CIT v/s Western India Shipyard Ltd (2015)379 ITR 289{Del) (Annexure E) . c) CIT Vis Jay Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42{Del) (Annexure F) . d) CIT v/s Sem Global Securities Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del) (Annexure H). e) CIT V/s BG Shirke Construction Technology Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 371 (Bom) (Annexure H) 4. The appellant, therefore, submits that in view of the above legal position regarding admissibility of fresh claim before the appellate authorities, the orde…

ACIT Cen. Cir. - 25, Mumbai vs. M/S. Parle Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this ground No

ITA 6964/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma () & Shri Pawan Singh () - Ay 1998-99 - Ay 2002-03 Ita No. 3891/Mum/2007 - Ay 2003-04 - Ay 2009-10 - Ay 2008-09 - Ay 2007-08 - Ay 2006-07 - Ay 2010-11

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…enditure debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenditure. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)." 44. In CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del) it has been observed and held as under- "The assessee filed a return of income declaring a net loss at Rs. 4,40,36,000/- for the assessment year 1990-91. The loss was computed at USD 4,27,63,353, inter alia, by making several 8 additions and disallowances. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 19,48,125/- as expenditure on account of…

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271Section 40a

…tax. (i) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (SLP dismissed on 21.11.2011) (ii) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., 222 CTR 526 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del.) (v) CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd., 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs. Info Vergix Technologies Ltd., 323 ITR 52 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Showa ltd., 329 ITR 449 (Del.) (viii) CIT vs. Industrial Finances Corpn. of India Ltd., 185 Taxman 296 (Del.) (ix) CIT vs. Denso India Ltd., 318 ITR 140 (Del.) (x) CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., ITA No…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 6567/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Setti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(5)

…lopment fee, environment and pollution fee etc., The assessee made such a claim before A.O. to highlight that it is a mistake in making the claim. The assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del.) in which it was held that “CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to entertain the additional claim not filed before A.O.” and other decisions of different High Courts were also referred to. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that case of the assessee is covered by these Judgments, therefore, claim of expenses 5 ITA.No.6567/Del./2015 M/s. Ansal Urban C…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashish Dhawan, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal &For Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 74

…ntitled, even though no claim was made by the assessee in the return as held by the Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.[ 349 ITR 336 (Bombay) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [3] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). Accordingly the A.O is directed to allow the set off of short term capital loss of FY 2008-09 (A.Y 2009-10) amounting to Rs. 2,07,98,279/ with the short term capital gain earned during the FY 2009- 10 (AY 2010-11) . The appellant will get the necessary relief”.” 5. We have heard the Ld. D.R. The Ld. D.R. submitted that A.O. could not hav…

M/S. Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Surat

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

ITA 2438/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR

Section 43B

…ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 power of the assessing authority and further that the said judgment did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 held that there was no prohibition on the power of the Tribunal to entertain additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter. Coming to the facts of the case, we observe that although there were clerical errors by the assessee while keying in figures in the return of income as well as there being an error while showing enter…

Viksun Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Viksun Agro Industries Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), C.R. Building, C-2/15, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacv3387N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 115Section 115JSection 194LSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 56

…ncluded the income in its return of income for particular year, it could not confer jurisdiction on the Department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income was not taxable as per law”. In the case of CIT versus Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “the Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expenditure to assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by the assessee in the return of income”. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SR Koshti 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) held that “if an assessee under a mistake, misconc…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1258/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139

…as relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) reported in 306 ITR 42. It has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has made 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 impin…

ACIT, Sikar vs. Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sikar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ies did have power and therefore, for this reason also, in our view, the judgment (Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the assessee rather than the revenue. 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Prabolic Springs Ltd.: (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), held as under:- 12 As clear from the above said facts, there is no dispute that customer introduction charges did not represent revenue expenditure. The principal ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is that if no claim for deduction of the amount was made in the return of income, then deduction would not be allowed. 13 Section 254…

Hemant G. Bohra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1) (Erstwhile-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4197/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Hemant G. Bohra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Shop No.15, 52/52A, Income Tax – 19(1) Room No.203, 2Nd Floor Nanubhai Desai Road Islampura Street Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 004 Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Adnpb4773D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 57

…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…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ion was deliberate, mala fide or even otherwise. The inference that the omission was inadvertent is, therefore, irresistible. [Para 21] Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was liable to be dismissed. [Para 26] b) CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd reported in 306 ITR 42 (Del) The operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced below:- Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 3231 (SC), 17. In Goetze (India) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to…

The ITO, Ward-4(4), Surat vs. M/S. Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Surat

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

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR

Section 43B

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 193/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

…er of appellate authority to 14 ITA No.4659/Del./2011 ITA No.5769/Del./2010 ITA No.152/Del./2012 ITA No.193/Del./2013 consider the revised claim as has been held in Rites Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 267 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – 306 ITR 42 (Del.). 16. Issue as to admissibility of India Project office in AYs 2006- 07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 is also identical to AY 2005-06, so we are of the considered view that in view of the findings returned in the preceding paras pertaining to appeal for AY 2005-06, appeals pertaining to AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are also remanded back to the A…

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 152/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 4659/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…on the following decisions :- " Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2010] 195 TAXMAN 30 (MUM.) (MAG) " Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of JCIT vs Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Del. ITAT) " CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) " CIT vs Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H). " CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) " CIT vs Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) " Aishwarya Rai vs DCIT: ITA No. 1159/Mum/04 " CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi) 27 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 41. Reliance was placed…

ITO, WD-43(3), Kolkata vs. Vipul Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 868/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10ASection 10B

…ge 25 of the order after taking note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 and the Division Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held at para 17 of the order that the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case of Goetz India Ltd. making it clear that the decision rendered in the Goetz India Ltd. is in respect to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for reduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on th…

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT(Exemption), Indore Education and Bhopal Service Society, बनाम/ 04, Sita Building, Y.N. Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.AAATI3186K Appellant by Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Sudheer Padliya, CA Date of Hearing: 07.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of In…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…t the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been interpreted in the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Courts not to exceed the power of the Tribunal nor the first appellate authority viz., the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JE Parolics 306 ITR 42 Delhi and Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Aluminum 163 Taxmann 430. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have examined the claim of the assessee and this action in interfering with the claim was not justified. 33. The next common ground raised by the assessee in the Cross- objection for asst.…

M/S. R.C. Narula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1028/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 48

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi Before : Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6093/Del/2015 & 1028/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 R.C. Nirula & Sons HUF, 32, vs. ACIT, Circle 32(1), Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAHR6050F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Kumar Chopra, FCA & Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against…