CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram

224 ITR 610Supreme Court of India1997#715 most cited

What is CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram authority for?

The appellate authority, while hearing an appeal, possesses all the powers that the original assessing authority had, unless restricted by statute. This means the appellate authority can modify an assessment order on an additional ground not raised before the assessing officer.

141

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram · 224 ITR 610 · powers of CIT(A) · enhancement powers · appellate authority powers · section 251 · assessment order modification · new source of income · judicial restraint

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 263Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)section 24(1)legal expensesddtsection 31preponderance of probabilitydumb documentsprincipal officershell company

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…. on the following decisions in this regard – ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 60 (i) Jute Corpn. of India Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions…

Sri Santhemathavathur Bhadregowda Shivalingaiah, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 549/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 234Section 56(2)(vii)

…991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) b) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT Siliguri reported in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) c) Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC) 5.2 Respectfully following the above judgements cited above, we refer this matter to the AO for determination of the correct value as on the date of purchase of the property as contemplated in section 50C(2) r.w.s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO is directed to decide the issue per law. 5.3 Further, in regard to addition for loan creditor…

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Allahabad vs. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Rabin Chaudhuri, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…m had been denied. 2. 2 BECAUSE the powers of the first appellate authority being co- terminus with that of the Assessing Officer, keeping in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram reported in (1997) 224 ITR 610 and after having exercised the same by examining the records and information furnished by the cross objector, the appellate order dated 25.02.2020 passed by Ld. CIT(A) does not at all suffers from any infirmity. ITA No. 62/ALLD/2020 and C.O. No. 01/ALLD/2021 (arising out of ITA No. 62/Alld/2020) Assessment Year 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Lmt. A…

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of income. This issue was examined by CIT(A) and accordingly enhancement was made following the due process of law. The ld. Departmental Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends vs. CIT, 388 ITR 16(Mad). (iii) Rallies IndiaLtd. Vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 282 (Bom) 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the respective sides have placed reliance to buttress their arguments. The first issue in…

Firestorm Electronics Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of income. This issue was examined by CIT(A) and accordingly enhancement was made following the due process of law. The ld. Departmental Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends vs. CIT, 388 ITR 16(Mad). (iii) Rallies IndiaLtd. Vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 282 (Bom) 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the respective sides have placed reliance to buttress their arguments. The first issue in…

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of income. This issue was examined by CIT(A) and accordingly enhancement was made following the due process of law. The ld. Departmental Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends vs. CIT, 388 ITR 16(Mad). (iii) Rallies IndiaLtd. Vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 282 (Bom) 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the respective sides have placed reliance to buttress their arguments. The first issue in…

Firestorm Electronics Corporaiton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of income. This issue was examined by CIT(A) and accordingly enhancement was made following the due process of law. The ld. Departmental Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends vs. CIT, 388 ITR 16(Mad). (iii) Rallies IndiaLtd. Vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 282 (Bom) 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the respective sides have placed reliance to buttress their arguments. The first issue in…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Firestorm Electronics Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3538/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of income. This issue was examined by CIT(A) and accordingly enhancement was made following the due process of law. The ld. Departmental Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends vs. CIT, 388 ITR 16(Mad). (iii) Rallies IndiaLtd. Vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 282 (Bom) 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the respective sides have placed reliance to buttress their arguments. The first issue in…

Sri. C. N. Babu, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…isions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 and CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) by placing reliance of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 Page 4 of 4 ITR 864 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.P. Sharafudin 252 Taxman 326 (Ker). The addition made by the CIT(A) in exercise of his powers of enhancement u/s.251 of the Act was accordingly deleted by the Tribunal.…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…s so, there appears to be no reason why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income-tax Officer. No exception could be taken, held the Supreme Court in CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) to this view as the Act places no restriction or limitation on exercising appellate power. Even otherwise, an appellate authority while hearing the appeal against the order of a subordinate authority, has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitation, if any,…

Melongos India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…ivable that in presence of such specific provisions a similar power is available to the first appellate authority u/s.251 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the case laws relied on by the CIT(A) as under:- 1) Nirbheram Daluram (SC) 224 ITR 610 2) Jute Corporation of India (SC) 187 ITR 688 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 8. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the assessment order and noted that the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad vs. R P Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 26/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Biswal Narahari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s apparent from the assessment order. It is submitted that this ground of appeal may be admitted u/s 250(5) of the IT Act, 1961 in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Jute corporation of India Vs CIT 187 ITR 688 and cit vs Nirbheram Dalurarn (224 ITR 610) 19.3 As per assessment order the AO has computed total income by treating Rs.24,44,25,076/ as “income from other sources” out of total business receipt of Rs.24,90,15,570/ as per accounts. In other words the AO has taken total business receipts to be Rs.45,90,494/. The AO is, therefore, required to recompute ‘income from business’ taking Rs.45,9…

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…s so, there appears to be no reason why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income-tax Officer. No exception could be taken, held the Supreme Court in CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) to this view as the Act places no restriction or limitation on exercising appellate power. Even otherwise, an appellate authority while hearing the appeal against the order of a subordinate authority, has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitation, if any,…

The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…Courts and the later judgments hold the field on this issue. the later judgments hold the field on this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC), held as follows: held as follows:- “For the assessment year 1956 For the assessment year 1956-57, during reassessment proceedings the ITO made 57, during reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on acco…

Sugota Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…(A) has no jurisdiction to make an enhancement on a new source of income. 2 I.T.A. No. 1459/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sugota Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirbheram Daluram (224 ITR 610) for the propositions that powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the ITO as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. 5. He distinguished the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sardari Lal & Co.(supra). The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of…