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.

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6983/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik
Section 43B

…the recent decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del); M/s. Influence v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2014-TIOL-1741 -HC-DEL-IT and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 and the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom)." "17. In all the aforementioned decisions cited by learned counsel for the Assessee, the High Court has considered the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The common thread…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…r 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 CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 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 Goetze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contra…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2169/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…r 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 CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 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 Goetze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contra…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…r 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 CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 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 Goetze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contra…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…r 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 CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 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 Goetze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contra…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…r 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 CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 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 Goetze (India) Ltd. is applicable only when a claim is made contra…

Mr. Bhavnesh Rajendra Singhi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Bhavesh Rajendra Singhi C/O Income Tax Officer Sanket Shah, Ward 18(1)(2), Flat 1902, 19Th Floor, Vs. Matru Mandir Building, Olympia Tower A Wing, Grant Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Byculla (West), Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aqops 9227 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Suyog Bhave, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Suyog Bhave, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 139(5)Section 35ASection 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…ent does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. Mr. Bhavesh Rajendra Singhi C/o Sanket Shah 8 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…

Asst. CIT 9 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6529/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…1 ITA No.6529/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Circle 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future Enterprises Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s Future Enterprises of Income Tax, Circle limited, Ground Floor, 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Knowledge House, Off 4th Floor, Aayakar Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Shyam Nagar, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400060 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP6317L Respondent .. Appellant Appellant by : Dinkle Hariya Respondent by…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1468/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…CIT (187 ITR 688) & National Thermal Power Co. Ltd Vs CIT (229 ITR 383) and Calcutta, Bombay & Delhi High Courts in Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO (262 CTR 633), CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd, (252 CTR 151), CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (306 ITR 42) and also ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. Ramesh Chandra Kedia (ITA No. 2072/Kol/2007) dated 27.06.2008, I am inclined to hold that an assessee is legally entitled to make a fresh claim in the appellate proceedings even if such, claim was not made in the return of income. In view of these judicial decisions the claim made by the appellant is…

DCIT, Trivandrum vs. Brahmos Aerospace( Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

…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. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in CIT v.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42/ 172 Taxman 258. 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 Div…

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Goldman Sachs (India) Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""य…

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Goldman Sachs (India) Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""य…

Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur vs. Shri Raja Vikram, Bastar

ITA 347/RPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 347/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Dist. Bastar (C.G) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Raja Vikram P/O. M/S. Vikas Associate ( Engineers), Jeypore Road, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G) Pan : Acopr6013N ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…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…

Ramjee Concretes Pvt.Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO-Ward-6(3), Chandigarh

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 205/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…can be made before the Appellate Authority and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authorities to entertain such a claim is beyond doubt. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. reported in 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held that there was no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and is necessary for a just decision of the case. Accordingly, ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 5 we deem it fit to admit the additional ground for th…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…n the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that there is no bar/ prohibition on the authority of an authority (other than the assessing officer) to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee: • CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del) • CIT v. Sain Processing & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 325 ITR 565 (Del) • CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H) • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498 (Bom.) • CIT v. Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj.) • CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No…