CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

160 ITR 920Supreme Court of India1986#1565 most cited
73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. · 160 ITR 920 SC · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · business expenditure allowance · Section 147 reassessment · Section 132 search and seizure · Section 153A block assessment · cash credits section 69A · assessment procedure · Income Tax Act · 1961

Also reported as

58 CTR 138

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 153ASection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 153(a)(1)section 11bsection 65(b)section 181section 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)section 194qsection 158bb(1)section 2(45)convertible foreign exchangesection 193

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

M/S Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5451/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…L/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T CIT vs. Aspentech India 5. 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5257/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…td. vs. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) 3. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5256/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…td. vs. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) 3. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5255/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…td. vs. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) 3. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5254/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…L/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T CIT vs. Aspentech India 5. 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…d. vs. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) 3. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5252/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. CIT vs. Aspentech India CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CI…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5251/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…td. vs. CIT: 443 ITR 250 (SC) 3. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Aspentech India 6. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 8. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 9. National Thermal Power Limited vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383(SC) 10. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) 11. CIT vs. Hiranand: 148 Taxman 281 (Raj)P. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233 (Del) 20. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Jamshedpur Transport Co.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2618/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Jamshedpur Transport Co. Ltd.……………………………..….……….Appellant Eastern Building, 2Nd Floor, Suit No.201, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaccj1431D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 16.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jcit-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,56,95,240/-. However, In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Income Of The Assessee Assessed At Rs.3,57,50,240/- Resulting In An Addition Of Rs.55,000/- To The Declared Income. While Framing The Assessment Order, No Specific Issue Was Discussed By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Addition Of Rs.55,000/- Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee. In Fact, The Assessment Order Is Silent On Disallowance Relating To Rs.55,000/- As Made By The Assessing Officer. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Stated By A Letter Dated 22.12.2019 That

Section 143(3)Section 250

…peal of the assessee. We also note that the said club entrance fees were incurred for the promotion of the business interest and hence the same is an allowable expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) has clearly held that the income tax authorities must grant relief to the assessee if the facts and materials available on record justify such relief, even if the assessee has not made a specific claim before the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the facts relating to club entrance fees was very much available on record. The assessee h…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…imed by the assessee in the return of income: Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All) CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) CIT vs Simon Carves Ltd: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT and Ors: 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs CIT: 229 ITR 383, (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Re:Decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. - not applicable Further, it is pertinent to note that Supreme Cour…

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…imed by the assessee in the return of income: Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All) CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) CIT vs Simon Carves Ltd: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT and Ors: 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs CIT: 229 ITR 383, (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Re:Decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. - not applicable Further, it is pertinent to note that Supreme Cour…

Mwh India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmwh India Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 168, Udyog Bhavan, Circle-9(2)(3), Sonawala Road, Room No. 147B, Goregaon (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 063 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca4613L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

…aimed deduction u/s 10B the A.O ought to have guided the assesse with regard to eligibility to claim deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The assesse also referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920 wherein it is held that there is duty cast on the Income Tax Officer to apply the relevant provisions of Indian Income Tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. The assesse has also referred the CBDT Circular No.14 (XV-35) of 1955 which states that Income tax autho…

Vipulbhai Labhubhai Sutariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 41/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 41/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipulbhai Labhubhai Sutariya, Vs. The Cit(A)-1, Surat. A-68, Shanti Niketan Society, Nr. Dharam Jivan Row House, Mota Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Chops 2930 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2022 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…he tax authorities to act properly and judiciously. As per CBDDT circular dated 03.11.1955 cited in Choksi vs CIT (107 ITR 363) and also as held in the decisions of CIT vs. Ahemndabad Miles (128 ITR 486), CIT vs/ Mattu (139 ITR 1020), CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Mills (160 ITR 920) (SC) CIT vs/ Anger Pressings (161 ITR 159) (SC) and other such cases, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to draw attention of the assessee to the deductions, relief, and refund to which, he / she himself / herself to be entitled, under facts of the case, if assessee is omitted to make the claim. Just because, assessee has accepted 12% profi…

Kavita Jayeshkumar Kotak, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R
Section 10(38)Section 114Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…r passed by the A.O. is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is whether the A.O. has gone into the crux of the matter, made proper inquiries and made well reasoned and sustainable addition. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, 160 ITR 920(SC) has held that the there is a duty cast on the ITO to determine the true figures of assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax effect. In the present case, the funds were borrowed for purchase of share, which was returned back immediately after LTCG. This indicates the intention of assessee to create capital without any cost or tax. T…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…d, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature. Further, the AO is duty bound to assess correct income of assessee as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, 160 ITR 920(SC). 2.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in all the assessments framed u/s 153 A, authorization u/s 132 was issued and incriminating material was found during the course of search in the premises controlled by the searched group which directly belong to the concerned…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…d, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature. Further, the AO is duty bound to assess correct income of assessee as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, 160 ITR 920(SC). 2.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in all the assessments framed u/s 153 A, authorization u/s 132 was issued and incriminating material was found during the course of search in the premises controlled by the searched group which directly belong to the concerned…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 3 Kolkata vs. M/S Wizard Enterprises Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by

ITAT/109/2017HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 260A

…10A that the assessee has not claimed the same under that provision on law in the return of income. Further, the Tribunal rightly took note of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. reported in (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) 6 wherein it was held that the duty cast on the Income Tax Officer to apply relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. That the assessee failed to claim the benefit of a set off cannot relieve the income tax officer of his duty to ap…

Smt. Vanita Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The Pcit (Central), 2, Samprat Co-Op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 Pan : Aakpv 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar & Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Dated 28.03.2021, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Assessee Has Taken 7 Grounds Of Appeal Which Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Pcit (Central), Ahmedabad ("The Pcit") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") & Has Further Erred In Directing The Ld. Ao To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Incorporating The Market Value Of The Property As Per Section 50C Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of The Appellant In Failing To Take Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. Cit Ay : 2010-2011 2

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 50C

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” अहमदाबाद। "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The PCIT (Central), 2, Samprat Co-op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 PAN : AAKPV 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "…

Smt. Jyoti Jain, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1075/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…er of the AAC in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the ITO.(Para 5) d) Similar position in law is affirmed in following judgements • CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. [1986] 160 ITR 920 (SC) • Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1981] 5 Taxman 310 (P&H HC) • DCM Benetton India Ltd. us. CIT [2008] 173 Taxman 283 (Delhi HC) • Amit P. Pandya vs. ACIT [2014] 50 taxmann. com 276 (Mumbai Trib.) • CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 100 (Madras HC) • CIT vs. Gangappa Cables Ltd. reported in [1979] 116 ITR 778 (…

Sh. Lalit Jain, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1074/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…er of the AAC in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the ITO.(Para 5) d) Similar position in law is affirmed in following judgements • CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. [1986] 160 ITR 920 (SC) • Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1981] 5 Taxman 310 (P&H HC) • DCM Benetton India Ltd. us. CIT [2008] 173 Taxman 283 (Delhi HC) • Amit P. Pandya vs. ACIT [2014] 50 taxmann. com 276 (Mumbai Trib.) • CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 100 (Madras HC) • CIT vs. Gangappa Cables Ltd. reported in [1979] 116 ITR 778 (…