CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.

Spinks Impex, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 39(3) & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.K. Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 03/01/2013 & 20/11/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-Xxviii, New Delhi For Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. The Grounds Raised In The Both The Appeals Are Common & Consolidated Order.

…by the lower authorities and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). 4. 3.1 The Ld. Senior DR, on the other hand, did not oppose admission of the additional ground. 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the ground raised by the assessee is in the nature of a legal claim as an alternative to the other grounds raised by the assessee. In view of the judgments ci…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…nvestments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – 263 CTR 48 (Bom.); ii) Ram Narain & Sons Pvt. Ltd. – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); iii) Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. CIT – 77 ITR 253 (S.C); iv) B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT – 83 ITR 223 (Bom.); v ) CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd. – 66 ITR 710 (S.C); 32. The learned CIT(DR), however, opposed the above request made on behalf of the assessee. 33. Considering the above submissions, we find that the plea raised is legal in nature and is in furtherance to the issue of validity of the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the claimed long term and short term gain by the assessee as bu…

M/S. Limelight Towers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 Limelight Towers (P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, F-8, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacl2094C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Wrong, Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Should Have Allowed The Appeal As The Assessment Completed U/S 147 On The Basis Of Reopening By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Was Wrong & Bad Both In Law & On Facts. 3. That Both Cit (Appeals) & Assessing Officer Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs 10,50,000/-In Total Income Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of I.T Act 1961 In Respect To The Following Shareholders: I. Pista Devi , C-277/3 Gali No 13 Bhajan Pura, Delhi

…the assessee might take the ground at any stage of appellate proceedings. In support of his claim, he relied on the judgments of the supreme court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs CIT reported at 229 ITR 383 and in the case of CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd reported in 66 ITR 710. The learned Senior Departmental 3 Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the of assessee cannot be allowed to take new ground which he has not taken before the lower authorities and he opposed the admission of the ground, but he could not controvert that the new ground raised was purely legal in nature. It is well settled law that leg…

C& Cconstruction Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

…even if this issue and contention was not raised before the authorities/Tribunal, the Tribunal should have sue moto, on its own, granted the said relief. He relies upon Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., reported as (1967) 66 ITR 710. 4. It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr.Vohra. An appeal under Section 260A of the Act is maintainable against every order passed by the Tribunal, where High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised b…

C& C Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

…even if this issue and contention was not raised before the authorities/Tribunal, the Tribunal should have sue moto, on its own, granted the said relief. He relies upon Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., reported as (1967) 66 ITR 710. 4. It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr.Vohra. An appeal under Section 260A of the Act is maintainable against every order passed by the Tribunal, where High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised b…

M/s. Bharat Gears Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central I

…certain cases, where the old parts were not available in the market or where the old parts had worked for 50 to 60 years, replacement can, in such cases of exception, fall within the expression "current repairs". In Mahalakshmi Textile Mills case [1967] 3 SCR 957 the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court was that old type of replacement parts were not available in the market and, therefore, the expenditure came within the expression "current repairs". That is not the case before us, hence, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the judgment of t…

Mohan Meakin Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…the assessee before the Authorities below and so could not be raised before this Court in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted otherwise and relied upon Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., 66 ITR 710. In this case, it was held that the right of the assessee to relief was not restricted to the pleas raised by him before the departmental authorities or before the Tribunal. It was held that if for reasons recorded for the departmental authorities in respect of the contention raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizer

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

…determine ITA 164/2007 Page No. 4 of 4 as to whether the claim was allowable under Section 37(1) of the said Act or not. However, we find that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd: 66 ITR 710 and CIT v. Rose Services Apartment India Pvt. Ltd: ITA 777/2008 decided on 20.02.2009, give a clear indication that the Tribunal was empowered to deal with the issue of allowability of the said amount of Rs 14.79 lacs and as to whether the assessee was entitled to claim it as a bad debt or as an expenditure under Section 37(1). 8. We se…