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.

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the r…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the r…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the r…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…. As a matter of fact, the Delhi High Court has also, in two separate judgments, come to the same conclusion. These judgments are rendered in: CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., (2013) 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 12.4.Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the judgment rendered in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The issue, with which, the Bombay High Court was grappling, was, that a claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act had not been made qua the…

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…the decisions in the cases of "National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)", "VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H)", "Siksa O Anusadhan Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112) [Orissa HC)", CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.HC), "CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.HC)- (FB)","P.V.Doshi Vs. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.HC)". ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 7 – 7. The replaced grounds taken on merit by the assessee vide letter dated 30.06.2023 are as under: “1. That on the facts, and in…

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4271/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-13(2), 309, Vikas Deep Building, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi. – 110 092. Pan: Aaacj3260C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.03.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No. Del/Cit(A)-5/0368/2016-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle-13(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Ld. Dr Submitted That The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous As Without Examining The Use Of Subsidy Amount Reliance Was Placed On The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court In The Case Of Shri Balaji Alloys & Others, 333 Itr 335 (J&K). It Was Submitted That The Cit(A) Was Supposed To Examine The Question Of Utilization Of The Subsidy In The Light Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited, 306 Itr 392 (Sc). The Ld. Ar, However, Relied The Order Of The Cit(A) & Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Not Taken Into Consideration The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 (Sc).

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssion of additional grounds by the appellate authority in the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 and in the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42. 4. Thereupon, the CIT(A) decided this additional ground by following the order at the first appellate stage for AY 2012-13, passed by the predecessor. As we go through the impugned order, we find that no other observation other than following the order for AY 2012-13 are made in the present year. During hearing, it transpired that the Revenue had…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…not denude the appellate authorities of their power to consider the claim, if, the relevant material is available on record and the claim is otherwise tenable in law.” iii. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IIv.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd [2008] 172 TAXMAN 258/ 306 ITR 42 (DELHI) 9 JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW VS ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR “16. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 6882 while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Supreme Court observed that :— ‘...An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding…

Taruna Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 111/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: M/S Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 3Section 80C

…(Circular is place on page no 30- 34) I refer the decision of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 in which it was held that wrongfully included dividend in ITR shall be reduced. Delhi High court in case of CIT vs Jai Parabolac Springs limited 306 ITR 42 held that decision of Goetz India does not put hold the powers of tribunal to allow fresh claim. In view of above, please allow either the claim of taxation under new regime u/s 115BAC or deduction u/s 80C & 80D.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records / decisi…

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 71Section 74

…tter of consideration by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd reported in 306 ITR 42 (Del). Hence, the claim of the assessee in first setting off the brought forward LTCL of AY 2007-08 with long term capital gain of the current year and the subsequent set off of business loss of the current year with the long term capital gain of the current year is to be accepted as was done by the assessee in the revised computation. Accordingly…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…rendered in Goetze (supra) does not impinge on powers of the appellate authorities to entertain such an additional claim: Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Aspentech India (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/2011 (Del.)(HC) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd.: (2014) 360 ITR 0682 (Del.)(HC) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) JCIT v Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Del. Trib.) SNC-Lavalin/Acres Inc.: 110 TTJ 13 (Del.) CIT vs. Aspentech India P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/2…

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…rendered in Goetze (supra) does not impinge on powers of the appellate authorities to entertain such an additional claim: Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.) CIT v. Aspentech India (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/2011 (Del.)(HC) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd.: (2014) 360 ITR 0682 (Del.)(HC) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) JCIT v Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Del. Trib.) SNC-Lavalin/Acres Inc.: 110 TTJ 13 (Del.) CIT vs. Aspentech India P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/2…

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

…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 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 ITR 268, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incom…

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3663/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

…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 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 ITR 268, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incom…

Jai Kishan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -39(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…on facts by denying the benefit of section 54B of the I.T Act to the appellant, by rejecting it solely on the ground that the claim was made outside the return of income. Reliance is placed upon Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336. 5 That the long term capital gain w.r.t sale of land for a notional consideration of Rs. 86,67,726/- cannot give rise to long term capital gain charged in the hands of the appellant as the aforesaid sale was admittedly made without receipt of sale consideration from the wife o…

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of escrow and not accrued per se, the assessee is entitled to raise claims not made in the ROI before the Appellate Authorities in accord with judicial dicta echoed in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del and other host of judgments. The assessee contends that in view of the complex and technical provisions contained in Indian Income Tax, it may not be unreasonable to expect the tax payers to miss on some of their rightful claims/concessions when they file their tax returns in the first instance. In view of settled position of law obliging the…