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.

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 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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…

M/S Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT, (Int. Tax), Cir.-24(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla & Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…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(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ted 30.01.2012 wherein the import of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has been explained on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), in the following words :- “5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. In our view, the plea of the assessee is well-reasoned, inasmuch as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not impinge on the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain a fresh claim which was hitherto not p…

Acc Ltd ( Formelry Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addll CIT, (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ted 30.01.2012 wherein the import of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has been explained on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), in the following words :- “5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. In our view, the plea of the assessee is well-reasoned, inasmuch as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not impinge on the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain a fresh claim which was hitherto not p…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ted 30.01.2012 wherein the import of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has been explained on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), in the following words :- “5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. In our view, the plea of the assessee is well-reasoned, inasmuch as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not impinge on the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain a fresh claim which was hitherto not p…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ted 30.01.2012 wherein the import of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has been explained on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), in the following words :- “5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. In our view, the plea of the assessee is well-reasoned, inasmuch as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not impinge on the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain a fresh claim which was hitherto not p…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ted 30.01.2012 wherein the import of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has been explained on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del), in the following words :- “5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. In our view, the plea of the assessee is well-reasoned, inasmuch as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not impinge on the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain a fresh claim which was hitherto not p…

Captain Steel India Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Kejriwal & Shri SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 80J

…al High Courts, allowing the claim of the assessee at the appellate stage, for which reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.); (ii) CIT Vs. Jal Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.); (iii) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC); (iv) CIT Vs. Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj.) (v) CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 141 ITR 499 (Guj- HC-FB) (vi) Rajkumar Srimal Vs. CIT (1976)102 ITR 525 (Cal) (vii) National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998)229 ITR 383 (SC) (viii) ITO Vs. Vintage…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1215/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…uch before the completion of the assessment and therefore, in light of the judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Share holders 394 ITR 336 (Bom)”, and decision of Delhi High Court in Jai parabolic reported in 306 ITR 42, he held that, such a claim can be entertained at the appellate stage. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), that this issue can be raised at the appellate stage an accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 18. The core issue before us is, whether, the mesne profits received by the Assessee from SBI…

Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai vs. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…uch before the completion of the assessment and therefore, in light of the judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Share holders 394 ITR 336 (Bom)”, and decision of Delhi High Court in Jai parabolic reported in 306 ITR 42, he held that, such a claim can be entertained at the appellate stage. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), that this issue can be raised at the appellate stage an accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 18. The core issue before us is, whether, the mesne profits received by the Assessee from SBI…

Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai vs. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1017/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…uch before the completion of the assessment and therefore, in light of the judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Share holders 394 ITR 336 (Bom)”, and decision of Delhi High Court in Jai parabolic reported in 306 ITR 42, he held that, such a claim can be entertained at the appellate stage. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), that this issue can be raised at the appellate stage an accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 18. The core issue before us is, whether, the mesne profits received by the Assessee from SBI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4073/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4072/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी 'डीबी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited...................................Appellant [PAN: AAFCG 2966 D] Vs. ACIT, Circle-Tinsukia, Assam…………....................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Ashok Tulsyan, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. N.T. Sherpa,…

M/S Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Philips Electronics Dcit (International Nederland B.V. Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Bengal Intelligent Part, Vs. Building Omega, 13Th & 14Th Floor, Block – Ep & Gp, Sector- V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091. [Pan: Aafcp 4361 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “(I) The Learned Assessing Officer [‘Ld. Ao’] & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ['Hon’Ble Drp'J Have Erred In Disregarding The Claim Made By The Appellant During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings & In Thereby Holding The Amount Of Rs. 85,82,15,139/- Received By The Appellant During The Year Under Consideration From Philips India Limited [‘Pil’] & Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited [‘Preethi’] Pursuant To The Global Service Unit Agreement [‘Gsu'] Is Taxable In India.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan KFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 139(5)

…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 4 M/s. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V. A.Y. 2015-16 Goetz India…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/325/2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 139(5)Section 154

…CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003881 ITA 325/2022 Page 4 of 7 error could have been rectified by the AO himself by computing the correct income of Assessee. The reliance placed by the ITAT on the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 42 is correct. In this appeal as well, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that it was a case of mistake which led to the Assessee not claiming the set of losses while computing the taxable income in the return. 7. With respect to the disallowance of the addition of Rs. 4,33,89,009/-, which was the amount reflected by the Assessee…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA - 325 / 2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022
Section 139(5)Section 154

…ld that this 2022:DHC:3881-DB ITA 325/2022 Page 4 of 7 error could have been rectified by the AO himself by computing the correct income of Assessee. The reliance placed by the ITAT on the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 42 is correct. In this appeal as well, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that it was a case of mistake which led to the Assessee not claiming the set of losses while computing the taxable income in the return. 7. With respect to the disallowance of the addition of Rs. 4,33,89,009/-, which was the amount reflected by the Assessee…