CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

234 ITR 663High Court1998#5225 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 199cost of improvementinterest on securitiesmere change of opinionsection 44asection 30section 44section 10(38)section 44abagricultural incomechange of opinioncross objection

Judgments citing CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.LOURDU REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 328/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ot filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has raised only cross objections which should be considered as an appeal by the assessee. On this issue, he relied on the following case laws: i. CIT v. PurbanchalParibabanGosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663. ii. Decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of ITO v. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1643/Del/2008 dated 12.05.2015. iii. DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt., Ltd in ITA No. 6977/MUM/2019 dated 23.06.2021. Page No. 23 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy 46. In…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 327/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ot filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has raised only cross objections which should be considered as an appeal by the assessee. On this issue, he relied on the following case laws: i. CIT v. PurbanchalParibabanGosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663. ii. Decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of ITO v. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1643/Del/2008 dated 12.05.2015. iii. DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt., Ltd in ITA No. 6977/MUM/2019 dated 23.06.2021. Page No. 23 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy 46. In…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 326/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ot filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has raised only cross objections which should be considered as an appeal by the assessee. On this issue, he relied on the following case laws: i. CIT v. PurbanchalParibabanGosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663. ii. Decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of ITO v. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1643/Del/2008 dated 12.05.2015. iii. DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt., Ltd in ITA No. 6977/MUM/2019 dated 23.06.2021. Page No. 23 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy 46. In…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 325/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ot filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has raised only cross objections which should be considered as an appeal by the assessee. On this issue, he relied on the following case laws: i. CIT v. PurbanchalParibabanGosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663. ii. Decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of ITO v. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1643/Del/2008 dated 12.05.2015. iii. DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt., Ltd in ITA No. 6977/MUM/2019 dated 23.06.2021. Page No. 23 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy 46. In…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ECGC LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

…r clauses (15), (23G) and (33) of section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 45 (Bom) following the earlier decision in CIT v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 761 (Bom). The Assessing Officer could not have ignored the binding precedent contained in the two Division Bench decisions of this court. Moreover, the Assessing Officer in allowing the benefit of the exemption, in the order of assessment under section 143(3) specifically relied upon the view taken by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its communic…

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…ness corporation are entitled to claim deduction it was otherwise admissible in the case when the assessee computation of income is governed by the other provisions of the Act. It was submitted that Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 71 ITR 761 allowed benefit of exemption to assessee engaged in the business of general 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. insurance and also allowed the benefit of exemption claimed by LIC. Reliance was placed on the Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd for Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA No. 6…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…ness corporation are entitled to claim deduction it was otherwise admissible in the case when the assessee computation of income is governed by the other provisions of the Act. It was submitted that Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 71 ITR 761 allowed benefit of exemption to assessee engaged in the business of general 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. insurance and also allowed the benefit of exemption claimed by LIC. Reliance was placed on the Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd for Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA No. 6…

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 200/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…ness corporation are entitled to claim deduction it was otherwise admissible in the case when the assessee computation of income is governed by the other provisions of the Act. It was submitted that Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 71 ITR 761 allowed benefit of exemption to assessee engaged in the business of general insurance and also allowed the benefit of exemption claimed by LIC. Reliance was placed on the Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd for Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA No. 6498 and 6499/Mumbai/2005 to contend that the Tribunal has…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), MUMBAI vs. EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2715/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of बिधम/ Edelweiss Tokio Life Income tax Central Circle Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 294/3, Edelweiss House, 4th 1(1) R. No. 903, 9th fl., Pratishtha Floor, Vidyanagari Marg, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Off C. S. T. Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (E), Mumbai- 400098. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCE2709H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR) Assessee…

DCIT- CC - 1 (1), MUMBAI vs. EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6270/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6270/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13 ) Dcit–Central Circle-1(1) M/S. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd. 4Th Floor, Edelweiss House बिाम/ Room No.903, 9Th Floor Off Cst Road, Kalina Old Cgo (Annexe) Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 098. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-2709-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-217/2016-17 Dated 20/08/2018 On Following Grounds: - 1. "Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A), Is Correct In Allowing Exemptions U/S. 10(34) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Amounting To Rs.17,92,987/- On Account Of Dividend Income Which Was Denied By The Assessing Officer On The Basis The Fetters Prescribed In Section 44 Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld. DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…the provisions of the act. Similar was the ratio of following decisions: - (i) DCIT V/s IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd. (ITA 6282/Mum/2012) (ii) General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s DCIT (342 ITR 27 Bom) (iii) CIT V/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. (71 ITR 761 Bom) (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (115 ITR 45 Bom) Therefore, the action of Ld. AO in taxing the dividend income was reversed. 3.4 The alternative disallowance u/s 14A, as proposed by Ld. AO was deleted by observing that the provisions of Sec.14A would not apply in case of insurance companies as held in following judicial…

HESPERA REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (E-Court module) ITA No. 764/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, M-62, Connaught Place, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCH3109C Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 15.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld.…

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/DEL/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 55

…cross objection by the appellant in appeal. In fact, the courts in certain decisions also held that the respondent can raise new grounds/plea even if there is no formal memorandum of cross objection filed by the respondent. He vehemently relied on 83 ITR 223, 234 ITR 663, 256 ITR 423 and 102 ITD 189. He therefore submitted that the cross objection filed by the respondent is Pari material to an appeal filed by the appellant and therefore the rights available to an appellant in an appeal before the tribunal are equally available to a respondent in the cross objections without any fetters. 20. We have carefully cons…

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3787/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, DR
Section 14ASection 253(4)

…assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on the following judicial pronouncements: - i) Superintendent Engineer vs. B. Subba Reddy AIR (1999) SCW 1479 ii) ACIT vs. Kripa Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2002) 82 ITD 449 (Pune) iii) CIT vs. Purbanchal Paribahan Gosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663 (Gauhati) iv) Income Tax Officer vs. Fagoomal Lakshmi Chand (1979) 118 ITR 766 (Mad.) 3.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the judicial pronouncements referred to (supra). Section 253(4) of the Act deals with the filing of COs. Rule 22 of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963 also lays down the procedure to be adopted for treatm…

ACIT CC vs. PANCHSHEEL HOMES (P) LTD,

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4144/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…at the assessee did not have any right/scope of filling of appeal U/s 253(1). Reliance was placed on CIT Tamil Nadu vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. 136 ITR 315 (Mad.). Reliance was further placed on the following cases- -CIT vs. Purbanchal Parbahan Gosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663 (Gauhati HC). – -NTPC Case 229 ITR 383 (SC) -CIT Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 367 -DCIT vs. Silver Line (Delhi ITAT) in ITA Nos. 1809, 1506, 1505, 1504/Del/2013 ITA No. 4144/D/07 & CO No.83/D/07 Page 10 of 30 M/s Panchsheel Homes P. Ltd. -Ashian Needles (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court order dated 06/07/2012) 8. Opposing…

ACIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI vs. REKHA R. KULKARNI, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5016/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosaini.T.A. No.5016/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Acit Circle 21(1), फनाभ/ Rekha R. Kulkarni, 6Th Floor, R.No. 601, Prabhat Apts, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Hanuman Road, (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 049. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aehpk7214B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.186/M/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5016/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Rekha R. Kulkarni, Acit Circle 21(1), 6Th Floor, R.No. 601, Prabhat Apts, Hanuman Road, Vs. Vile Parle (W), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 049. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aehpk7214B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Aarti Sathe / Kalpesh Turalkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aarti Sathe / KalpeshFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, DR

…s cited by the Ld Counsel for the assessee ie the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [141 ITR 367] and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Purbanchal Paribahan Gosthi [234 ITR 663] are distinguishable on facts. In these cases, the appeals by the Revenue are not dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of tax effect based on the CBDT Circular (supra). Otherwise, as per the Ld Counsel, there is no precedent in existence which is applicable to the facts of the present case against the dismissal of the CO as non-maintainabl…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…was issued. Rebutting the learned DR's argument that the additional ground raised in Cross Objection cannot be acted upon in lieu of s. 253(4) of the Act, the learned AR had placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court reported in 234 ITR 663 (Gau). The issue raised in the additional ground being a legal which goes to the rootof the matter, the learned AR contended that there was no difference between a cross objection and an appeal and, therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee deserves to be admitted as it is within the parameter of law. It was, further, submitted that…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…was issued. Rebutting the learned DR's argument that the additional ground raised in Cross Objection cannot be acted upon in lieu of s. 253(4) of the Act, the learned AR had placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court reported in 234 ITR 663 (Gau). The issue raised in the additional ground being a legal which goes to the rootof the matter, the learned AR contended that there was no difference between a cross objection and an appeal and, therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee deserves to be admitted as it is within the parameter of law. It was, further, submitted that…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…o difference in so far as raising additional ground is concerned-to be taken in the appeal or in the cross- objection. In this regard he cited following decisions.- CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 141 ITR 367 (Bom.) CIT Vs. Purvanchal Baribahan Goshti 234 ITR 663 (Cal.) 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted further that when question of law arises even though the same was not raised before the authorities below and for the first time it was raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is empowered and have jurisdictional to examine the same. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 229…

SH. SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5024/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…o difference in so far as raising additional ground is concerned-to be taken in the appeal or in the cross- objection. In this regard he cited following decisions.- CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 141 ITR 367 (Bom.) CIT Vs. Purvanchal Baribahan Goshti 234 ITR 663 (Cal.) 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted further that when question of law arises even though the same was not raised before the authorities below and for the first time it was raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is empowered and have jurisdictional to examine the same. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 229…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. AMALGAMATED COMPANY OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY M/S. RIM ZIM VALLEY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3170/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…o difference in so far as raising additional ground is concerned-to be taken in the appeal or in the cross- objection. In this regard he cited following decisions.- CIT Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd 141 ITR 367 (Bom.) CIT Vs. Purvanchal Baribahan Goshti 234 ITR 663 (Cal.) 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted further that when question of law arises even though the same was not raised before the authorities below and for the first time it was raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is empowered and have jurisdictional to examine the same. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 229…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2