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

Madan Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 2954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihari Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6590E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―E‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hari Mohan Sharma, Vs. ACIT, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AARPS6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. ACIT, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AARPS6590E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv Shri Sahilesh Gupta, Adv Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHA…

Hari Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 2953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihari Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6590E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―E‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hari Mohan Sharma, Vs. ACIT, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AARPS6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. ACIT, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AARPS6590E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv Shri Sahilesh Gupta, Adv Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHA…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…y clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the viewpoint of the taxability of the assessee. 46. A question regarding powers of the first appellate authority came up for consideration before the Supreme Court recently in CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC). Following the earlier decisions in Kanpur Coal Syndicate and Jute Corporation of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate powers conferred on the Appellate Commissioner under section 251 could not be confined to the matter considered by the Income-tax Officer, as the Appellate Commissioner is vested with all the plenary powers…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…y clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the viewpoint of the taxability of the assessee. 46. A question regarding powers of the first appellate authority came up for consideration before the Supreme Court recently in CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC). Following the earlier decisions in Kanpur Coal Syndicate and Jute Corporation of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate powers conferred on the Appellate Commissioner under section 251 could not be confined to the matter considered by the Income-tax Officer, as the Appellate Commissioner is vested with all the plenary powers…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 977/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Zuberi Engineering Company, D.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- Kapil Goel Adv., F-26/124 Circle-2, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Jaipur. PAN No.: AAAFZ 2103 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1122/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., M/s Zuberi Engineering Comp…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1619/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1618/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1617/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.S.Mahalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1616/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.S.Mahalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1615/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.S.Mahalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1614/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1622/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1621/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Dr.L.Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1620/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…ect matter of consideration for the purpose of assessment by the Income Tax officer. 12. In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the issue was squarely covered bythe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein it has been held that the appellate power conferred on AAC is not confined to matter which had been considered by the Income Tax officer. It was a submission that the said view has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The ld.D.R also…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Ranjit Hanmantrao Mohite, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BathamFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 143(3)

…that the CIT(A) can admit a new/fresh claim which was not made by the assessee in the return of income or in the assessment proceedings and that the power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. The Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) relying on the decision of the Jute Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC), held that the first appellate authority has plenary powers in disposing an appeal and the scope of his power is co-terminus with that of ITO. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do. In the case of Chicago Pneuma…

A.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra vs. M/S Roger Industries Ltd., Agra

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…all the powers, which the original authority has subject to condition/restriction, if any, prescribed by law as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: 1. Jute Corp. of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688,693 SC; and 16 2. CIT vs. NirbheramDaluram, (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC). In view of above, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. The appeal filed by the department has no merit and the same is dismissed at the admission sta…

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 909 (Born. HC). Ld. DR also during the course of hearing relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. McMillan & Co. 13 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty [1958] 33 ITR 182 and CIT v. Nirbherarn Deluram [1997] 224 ITR 610. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by both the parties as well as orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that although, the powers of Ld. CIT(A) being wider than that of any other appellate authorities or Court is not disputed, but the Ld. CIT(A) cannot…