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.

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37

…ted to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." 34. In the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42/172 Taxman 258 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that there is no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arose in the matter and for just decision of the case. 35. In case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336/208 Taxman 498/23 taxmann.com 23 (Bom…

DCIT (Exemption) Bhopal, Bhopal vs. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ground no

ITA 990/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit (Exemption) M/S. Indore Education & Bhopal Service Society 4, Sita Building, Yn Road, Vs. Opp. State Bank Of India Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaati 3186K Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT (Exemption) M/s. Indore Education and Bhopal Service Society 4, Sita Building, YN Road, Vs. Opp. State Bank of India Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) PAN: AAATI 3186K Revenue by Ms. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Sudhir Padliya, AR Date of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.12.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.09.2019…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4334/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv
Section 10Section 10(29)Section 10(33)Section 11Section 115JSection 2

…gone through the impugned order and the submissions made by the Id. AR of the assessee, it is stated that the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) (supra) is not applicable to the appellate authorities. In CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), the decision in Goetze India (supra) was considered. At page 46, it was held as under:- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. 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 Act to make amendment in the return without filing a r…

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4190/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv
Section 10Section 10(29)Section 10(33)Section 11Section 115JSection 2

…gone through the impugned order and the submissions made by the Id. AR of the assessee, it is stated that the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) (supra) is not applicable to the appellate authorities. In CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), the decision in Goetze India (supra) was considered. At page 46, it was held as under:- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. 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 Act to make amendment in the return without filing a r…

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

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

ITA 3307/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…wer of the assessing authority and did not impinge upon the power of the tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider the case on merits and decide accordingly. 6. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this Court made reference to the following passage from National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1998] 229 ITR 383(SC):- "The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…wer of the assessing authority and did not impinge upon the power of the tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider the case on merits and decide accordingly. 6. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this Court made reference to the following passage from National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1998] 229 ITR 383(SC):- "The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the…

Bapa Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeal)-National, Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bapa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Cit (Appeal) - Nfac 156, Maker Chambers Vi, Mumbai 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…), National Thermal Power Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and has also considered the decision of the division bench of the Hon’ble 5 Bapa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (del) and has held that the assessee can claim deduction before the ld. A.O. though it was not claimed during filing of the original return of income nor was revised return filed by the assessee. It was further held that the appellate authorities can very well entertain such claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return. The relevant extra…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vipul Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed and Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 891/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.6480/DEL/2016 A.Y.: 2011-12 M/S VIPUL INFRACON PVT. LTD. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF 14/185-186, GROUND FLOOR, VS INCOME TAX, RANGE-17, MAIN SHIVALIK ROAD, NEW DELHI MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AAACT4544M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) AND A.Y. : 2011-12 ACIT, CIRCLE 26(2), M/S VIPUL INFRACON PVT. ROOM NO. 192, C.R. VS. LTD. BUILDING, NEW DELHI 14/185-186, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN SHIVALIK ROAD, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AAACT4544M) (REVENUE) (…

M/S. Vipul Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed and Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6480/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.6480/DEL/2016 A.Y.: 2011-12 M/S VIPUL INFRACON PVT. LTD. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF 14/185-186, GROUND FLOOR, VS INCOME TAX, RANGE-17, MAIN SHIVALIK ROAD, NEW DELHI MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AAACT4544M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) AND A.Y. : 2011-12 ACIT, CIRCLE 26(2), M/S VIPUL INFRACON PVT. ROOM NO. 192, C.R. VS. LTD. BUILDING, NEW DELHI 14/185-186, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN SHIVALIK ROAD, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AAACT4544M) (REVENUE) (…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…not have been raised’ must be construed liberally and not strictly. There may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case must be considered on its own facts. 5.4 In the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that there is no prohibition of powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which was not raised before the lower authorities. 5.5 Apart from above, under similar circumstances the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Crystal Crop Protection (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA…

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…ere a claim is not made in ROI, including revised ROI, although the AO is not empowered to allow such claim, the same can be raised before CIT(A) as additional grounds of appeal - - Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) - CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del.) 2. It is submitted that the assessee had sold a residential house at Plot No. 6/390 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur vide registered sale deed dated 27/7/2012(copy at Paper Book page No 35 to 40) for Rs 1,00,00,000/-. There was one residential house constructed on the plot of land is evident from the following: 10 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…power of the appellate authorities in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (supra). Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim of assessee. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of CIT(A). We do not C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 find any merits in grounds of appeal filed by the R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…power of the appellate authorities in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (supra). Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim of assessee. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of CIT(A). We do not C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 find any merits in grounds of appeal filed by the R…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…e authorities . The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment On facts, there was nothing to show that the claim entertained by the CIT(A)/ ITAT was improper." (Jai Parabolic 306 ITR 42 (Del.) referred) In the instant case the assessee has made claim of section 80IA and filed all details with AO. The AO has examined the same and then denied it stating that the fly ash is one of the ingredients in manufacture of Pozzocrete. This view of AO is not correct. On examination of composition of Pozzocrete it is observed that fly ash is t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…e authorities . The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment On facts, there was nothing to show that the claim entertained by the CIT(A)/ ITAT was improper." (Jai Parabolic 306 ITR 42 (Del.) referred) In the instant case the assessee has made claim of section 80IA and filed all details with AO. The AO has examined the same and then denied it stating that the fly ash is one of the ingredients in manufacture of Pozzocrete. This view of AO is not correct. On examination of composition of Pozzocrete it is observed that fly ash is t…

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Jpr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Smt. Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 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…

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7245/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7245/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम The State Trading Corporation Of Acit India Ltd., Vs. Circle 25(1), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, C.R. Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaact0102F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 250

…I.T.A.No.7245/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7245/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम The State Trading Corporation of ACIT India Ltd., Vs. Circle 25(1), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, C.R. Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACT0102F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kamal Kishan Jaithley, Adv. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri SM Manzar, Adv. Shri Sudhir Gupta, CA Shri Vivek Verma, CIT DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Sanjay Kumar, S…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. “(i) Himachal Gramin Bank vs. DCIT [(2009) 176 Taxman 433(HP)] - Himachal Pradesh High Court (ii) V. Lakshmi Reddy vs. ITO [(2011) 196 Taxman 78 (Mad)] - Madras High Court (iii) CIT vs. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. [(2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (iv) CIT vs. Ramco International [221 CTR 491 (P&H)] -Punjab and Haryana High Court (v) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd. [303 ITR 256 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (vi) CIT vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2010) 328 ITR 338 (Delhi)]- Delhi High Court (vii) Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [[(2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.); ITA No.3…

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. “(i) Himachal Gramin Bank vs. DCIT [(2009) 176 Taxman 433(HP)] - Himachal Pradesh High Court (ii) V. Lakshmi Reddy vs. ITO [(2011) 196 Taxman 78 (Mad)] - Madras High Court (iii) CIT vs. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. [(2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (iv) CIT vs. Ramco International [221 CTR 491 (P&H)] -Punjab and Haryana High Court (v) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd. [303 ITR 256 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (vi) CIT vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2010) 328 ITR 338 (Delhi)]- Delhi High Court (vii) Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [[(2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.); ITA No.3…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. “(i) Himachal Gramin Bank vs. DCIT [(2009) 176 Taxman 433(HP)] - Himachal Pradesh High Court (ii) V. Lakshmi Reddy vs. ITO [(2011) 196 Taxman 78 (Mad)] - Madras High Court (iii) CIT vs. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. [(2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (iv) CIT vs. Ramco International [221 CTR 491 (P&H)] -Punjab and Haryana High Court (v) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd. [303 ITR 256 (Del.)] -Delhi High Court (vi) CIT vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2010) 328 ITR 338 (Delhi)]- Delhi High Court (vii) Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [[(2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.); ITA No.3…