CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd.

328 ITR 338High Court2010#4401 most cited

What is CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. authority for?

The Tribunal has comprehensive jurisdiction to deal with issues in an appeal and can allow a new ground to be raised, assimilating issues from the CIT (Appeals) order.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. · Section 254 · Tribunal jurisdiction · new ground of appeal · CIT (Appeals) order

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2AB)

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)(ii)r&d expenditureweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)kelvinatoradvance taxsection 35childsection 10(38)section 254revenue expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd.

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…tion 254 of the Act. On similar lines, other cases are as under: i) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products P. Ltd. - [2009] 312 ITR 22 (Delhi) ii) CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd. – [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) iii) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. – [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) iv) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. – [ 2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) 17. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Perlo Telecommunication [2022] 141 taxmann.com 387 (Mad.) has held that there is no provision on the power of Tribunal or appellate authority to entertain such claim which…

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…tion 254 of the Act. On similar lines, other cases are as under: i) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products P. Ltd. - [2009] 312 ITR 22 (Delhi) ii) CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd. – [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) iii) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. – [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) iv) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. – [ 2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) 17. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Perlo Telecommunication [2022] 141 taxmann.com 387 (Mad.) has held that there is no provision on the power of Tribunal or appellate authority to entertain such claim which…

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…tion 254 of the Act. On similar lines, other cases are as under: i) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products P. Ltd. - [2009] 312 ITR 22 (Delhi) ii) CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd. – [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) iii) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. – [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) iv) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. – [ 2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi) 17. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Perlo Telecommunication [2022] 141 taxmann.com 387 (Mad.) has held that there is no provision on the power of Tribunal or appellate authority to entertain such claim which…

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…ate authority has power even to admit a claim not made in the proceedings before the lower authority. Power of CIT(A) to consider claim not made in the return has also been upheld in the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 328 ITR 338 and by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 349 ITR 336. It is also noted, that jurisdictional bench of tribunal, in the case of DCIT, Circle-50, Kolkata v. Ramesh Chandra Kedia ITA No. 2072/Kol/2007, has held after considering various decisions, including in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supro) that C…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…ate authority has power even to admit a claim not made in the proceedings before the lower authority. Power of CIT(A) to consider claim not made in the return has also been upheld in the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 328 ITR 338 and by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 349 ITR 336. It is also noted, that jurisdictional bench of tribunal, in the case of DCIT, Circle-50, Kolkata v. Ramesh Chandra Kedia ITA No. 2072/Kol/2007, has held after considering various decisions, including in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supro) that C…

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

…s empowered to deal with the issue and was entitled to determine the claim of loss, if at all, under one section/provision or the other. 11. Decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was again relied upon by the Revenue in CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) but the contention was not accepted, observing that the tribunal‟s jurisdiction is comprehensive and assimilates issues in the appeal from the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with order passed by th…

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

…s empowered to deal with the issue and was entitled to determine the claim of loss, if at all, under one section/provision or the other. 11. Decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was again relied upon by the Revenue in CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) but the contention was not accepted, observing that the tribunal‟s jurisdiction is comprehensive and assimilates issues in the appeal from the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with order passed by th…

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

…c 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.3908 of 2010 decided on 21/06/2012] – Bombay High Court (referred to at page 927 of the CIT(A)’s Order) (viii) Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [(1967) 20 STC 64 (Mys)] – Mysore High Court (at page 928 of the CIT(A)’s order)” 82. R…

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

…c 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.3908 of 2010 decided on 21/06/2012] – Bombay High Court (referred to at page 927 of the CIT(A)’s Order) (viii) Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [(1967) 20 STC 64 (Mys)] – Mysore High Court (at page 928 of the CIT(A)’s order)” 82. R…

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

…c 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.3908 of 2010 decided on 21/06/2012] – Bombay High Court (referred to at page 927 of the CIT(A)’s Order) (viii) Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [(1967) 20 STC 64 (Mys)] – Mysore High Court (at page 928 of the CIT(A)’s order)” 82. R…

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

…c 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.3908 of 2010 decided on 21/06/2012] – Bombay High Court (referred to at page 927 of the CIT(A)’s Order) (viii) Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [(1967) 20 STC 64 (Mys)] – Mysore High Court (at page 928 of the CIT(A)’s order)” 82. R…

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

…c 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.3908 of 2010 decided on 21/06/2012] – Bombay High Court (referred to at page 927 of the CIT(A)’s Order) (viii) Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [(1967) 20 STC 64 (Mys)] – Mysore High Court (at page 928 of the CIT(A)’s order)” 82. R…

MOHD. MURTUZA SIDDIQUI,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 155/ALLD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 80C

…of appeal without any reason. Reliance is placed by the appellant on ratio of following judicial pronouncements: 1. Ajeet Kumar Seth v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2008] 170 Taxman 154 (Allahabad) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) 4.4 It is further submitted that service of notice is a sine qua non for initiation and completion of a valid proceeding. The appellant has claimed before the Learned CIT(A), that there is no service of notice u/s 148 on the appellant. The appellant has raised this issue in ground no. 2 in substituted grounds of appeal. For a moment if i…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/466/2016HC Karnataka03 Mar 2021

Bench: Cit(A) Is Entertain Able Even When The Same Is Not Claimed In Original Return Of Income Nor The Assessee

Section 10Section 138(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 23CSection 260Section 260ASection 80P

…HTA VS. A.BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHERS', (2004) 269 ITR 1 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. PRUTHV BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD.', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL), 'CIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD.', (2010) 328 ITR 338 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.', (2014) 360 ITR 682 (DEL.), 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. 10 LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), 'RAJESHWARI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT', (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 463 (KAR.). 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perus…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2037/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…issue raised by the assessee is legal one and it can ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 4 be entertained by the first appellate authority. He made reference to large number of decisions viz. CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., 328 ITR 338 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P.Ltd., 349 ITR 336. The ld.CIT(A) has entertained the claim of the assessee and proceed to decide it on merit. On merit, it was contended by the assessee that basically, the issue involved is about selection of initial assessment year for claiming deduction under section 80IA…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 3233/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…issue raised by the assessee is legal one and it can ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 4 be entertained by the first appellate authority. He made reference to large number of decisions viz. CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., 328 ITR 338 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P.Ltd., 349 ITR 336. The ld.CIT(A) has entertained the claim of the assessee and proceed to decide it on merit. On merit, it was contended by the assessee that basically, the issue involved is about selection of initial assessment year for claiming deduction under section 80IA…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2490/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…issue raised by the assessee is legal one and it can ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 4 be entertained by the first appellate authority. He made reference to large number of decisions viz. CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., 328 ITR 338 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P.Ltd., 349 ITR 336. The ld.CIT(A) has entertained the claim of the assessee and proceed to decide it on merit. On merit, it was contended by the assessee that basically, the issue involved is about selection of initial assessment year for claiming deduction under section 80IA…

SREE MURALI MOHAN BOILED & RAW RICE MILL (P) LIMITED,BICCAVOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

ITA 276/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S Sree Murali Mohana Boiled & Raw The Assistant Commissioner Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Of Income-Tax, D.No.1-54, Kommaripalem Central Circle-1(1) Biccavolu Mandal Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aahcs7807F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/s Sree Murali Mohana Boiled & Raw The Assistant Commissioner Rice Mill (P) Ltd., of Income-Tax, D.No.1-54, Kommaripalem Central Circle-1(1) Biccavolu Mandal Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. [PAN : AAHCS7807F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Responde…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD, GURGAON

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4358/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92CSection 92F

…ntly during the course of hearing. The same has also been recorded in the order of the CIT(A). In this regard, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jindal Saw Pipes (2010) 328 ITR 338 (Del) where in it is held that the authority of the Commissioner is co-extensive with that of the Assessing Officer. Moreover, Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961 allows the Assessee to raise an issue not even forming part of the grounds of appeal and even if a question has not been specifically pleaded in the grounds, the same if pleaded during the…

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

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

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

…IT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) 8 CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai). 8.4 Ld. Counsel of the assessee has also filed the Written Submissions with regard to his contention on the incorrect assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and on additional legal…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2