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 366,314 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.

Howrah Mills Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-Xxii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shr Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden , Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…wer of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961”. This has been interpreted in several judicial pronouncements as applicable even to the first appellate authorities. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai parabolic Springs 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held that the appellate authorities under the Act, were free to consider a claim made by an Assessee even in the absence of a revised return of income and that the requirement for filing a revised return of income as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) is applicable only when a claim is made c…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Howrah Mills Company Limited, Howrah

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1894/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shr Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden , Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…wer of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961”. This has been interpreted in several judicial pronouncements as applicable even to the first appellate authorities. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai parabolic Springs 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held that the appellate authorities under the Act, were free to consider a claim made by an Assessee even in the absence of a revised return of income and that the requirement for filing a revised return of income as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) is applicable only when a claim is made c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (1991)187-ITR 688 2. Abhishek Industries Ltd Vs. CIT (2007) 290 ITR 655 (P&H) 3. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 291 (Bom.) 4. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336 5. CIT Vs. Jaiparbolic Spring (2008) 306 ITR 42 6. CIT Vs. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1233/2011 28.11.2011). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 5 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute that impugned claim was neither made by the…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (1991)187-ITR 688 2. Abhishek Industries Ltd Vs. CIT (2007) 290 ITR 655 (P&H) 3. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 291 (Bom.) 4. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336 5. CIT Vs. Jaiparbolic Spring (2008) 306 ITR 42 6. CIT Vs. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1233/2011 28.11.2011). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 5 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute that impugned claim was neither made by the…

DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata vs. M/S. East India Business Centre (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 154

…wer of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961”. This has been interpreted in several judicial pronouncements as applicable even to the first appellate authorities. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai parabolic Springs 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held that the appellate authorities under the Act, were free to consider a claim made by an Assessee even in the absence of a revised return of income and that the requirement for filing a revised return of income as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) is applicable only when a claim is made c…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) 8 CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 8.4 L…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) 8 CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 8.4 L…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Linde India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 323/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)

…a settlement with the trade union representing the workers was allowable as business expenditure, since it was incurred in connection with the industrial health of the business as a whole. In the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (200080 172 taxman 258/306 ITR 42(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business m9ust be allowed in its entirely in year in which it is incurred; it cannot be spread over a number of years even if assessee has written it off in its books over a period of number of years. In the case of CI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dinesh Shrama, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 226/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 133Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 34Section 48

…ttled law that the appellant is entitled to raise an additional claim before the AO or the appellate authority which was not raised earlier. Useful reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parabolic springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del). The Hon'ble Apex Court of India, CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR 138 (SC) held that there is duty cast on the AO to apply the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the purpose of determining the true figure of taxable income and consequential tax liability. That the appellant fails to claim the benefit canno…

M/S. Satnam Overseas Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aacfs 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xix, New Delhi, Vide Order Dated 21.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Eleven Grounds Of Appeal. As A Matter Of Fact The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Pressed Only Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Which Pertained To One Issue Only & The Said Grounds Are Reproduced Hereinbelow. “3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That No Cognizance Can Be Taken Of The Claim Made By The Assessee That Sale Of Property Be Treated As Capital Gain & Indexation Benefit Should Be Allowed To The Assessee. The Action Of The Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Acquire Any Capital Asset & Hence Did Not Acquire Any Rights Over The Property. 5. The Interpretation Given By The Cit(A) Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Judgments & Well Settled Principles Of Law. Moreover The Cit(A) Has Failed To Examine The Material On Record In A Judicious Manner.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, GK-II, New Delhi. PAN: AACFS 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(s) by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)- XIX, New Delhi, vide order dat…

Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we also set aside the appeal of the assessee against chargeability of interest under section 234C of the income tax act back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2181/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisrf Limited, Vs. Dcit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Srf Limited, Vs. Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Srf Limited, Vs. Addl Cit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Cr Building, Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 208Section 234C

…if the deduction is available to the assessee, he should have granted despite there being no claim before the assessing officer in the return of income or in the revised return of income. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus J parabolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 has held that considering the decision of Honourable supreme court in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT 6 | P a g e SRF Limited V DCIT A Y 2006-07 ITA NO 2181/Del/2009 (A) , ITA No 4455/del/2009 (A) & ITA No 4853/Del/2009 ( R ) [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the groun…

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 10.4 Ld…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 10.4 Ld…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 10.4 Ld…

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 10.4 Ld…

Ajaykant Ramprasad Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 579/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 30. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 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 Be…

M/S Caparo Maruti Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 1645/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicaparo Maruti Ltd, Addl. Cit, 101-`04, 1St Floor, Naurang House, 21 Range-3, Vs. Kg Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc6423G (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Caparo Maruti Ltd, 101-04, 1St Floor, Naurang House, 21 Range-3, Vs. New Delhi Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc6423G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash Chand Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…rst appellate authority. 26. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that ld CIT(A) has taken into consideration Form NO. 3AA filed by the assessee relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del) and allowed the claim of additional depreciation. No infirmity was pointed out by revenue in the order of the ld CIT(A) in allowing additional depreciation on Gurgaon plant. Therefore, we confirm the finding of the ld CIT(A) in admitting Form No. 3AA filed by the assessee before the ld. Assessing Officer and thereby allowing additional depre…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ed depreciation on 'goodwill'. Hon'ble ITAT after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Limited 348 ITR 302 and decisions of Delhi High Court in Areva T&D India Limited (supra) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited 306 ITR 42 held under: "7.16 In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's order and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that since the assessee purchased the business lock stock & barrel and has shown the value of the goodwill right from the acquisition onwards i.e. from the year 2000 onwards in th…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ed depreciation on 'goodwill'. Hon'ble ITAT after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Limited 348 ITR 302 and decisions of Delhi High Court in Areva T&D India Limited (supra) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited 306 ITR 42 held under: "7.16 In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's order and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that since the assessee purchased the business lock stock & barrel and has shown the value of the goodwill right from the acquisition onwards i.e. from the year 2000 onwards in th…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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…