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 366,470 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 Elem Investment(P)Limited, Hyderabad vs. The Dict, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 121/HYD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As…

M/S Fincity Investments Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 119/HYD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble :- 12 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities.…

M/S Highgrace Investments Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 114/HYD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities…

M/S Fincity Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 591/HYD/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble :- 12 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities.…

M/S Highgrace Investements Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 590/HYD/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities…

M/S Elem Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 589/HYD/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As…

M/S Vecyes Investement Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 588/HYD/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…axable income. He supported the detailed orders of the Ld.CIT(A). He supported the order of AO and CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s 37(1). 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As far as the issue of claim of professional c…

M/S High Grace Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 619/HYD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities…

M/S Elem Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 617/HYD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As…

M/S Fincity Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 616/HYD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble :- 12 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities.…

M/S Highgrace Investements Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 733/HYD/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities…

M/S Fincity Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 732/HYD/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble :- 12 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities.…

M/S Elem Investments Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 731/HYD/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…a methodology adopted for reducing the taxable income. He supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue of claim u/s. 37(1) as well. 9. In reply, Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Deluram [224 ITR 610] (SC) was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. [251 ITR 864] (Del) and so the principles are already clear that CIT(A) cannot traverse beyond the issue before him. :- 12 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As…

ITO 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Surekha Vilas Soudagar, Mumbai

ITA 5198/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…of any statutory provision, general principle relating to the amplitude of appellate authority's power being co-terminus with that of the initial authority should normally be applicable. 3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nirbheram Deluram [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) the Supreme Court again discussed the powers of CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that it had previously held in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 t that the declaration of law is clear that the power of the AAC is coterminous with that of the ITO and if that is so, there appears to be no reason as…

The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Harjivanbhai Chaganbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2460/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2384/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs Income-Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2460/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Harjivanbhai C. Patel, C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Income-Tax, Vs Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pd. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Ahmedabad Dated 21St July, 2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…7 ITR 808 (Ker.) iv) Dwarka Prasad Vs. ITO 63 ITD 1 (ITAT - Pat) v) B.L. Choudhury Vs. CIT 105 ITR 371 (Ori.) vi) ITO Vs. Industrial Roadways (2007) 19(I) ITCL 460 (ITAT-Mum). vii) CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). viii) CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) In view of ratio laid down in above case laws, the additional evidences so submitted are decided to be admitted. The jurisdictional directions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) are also being relied. As there is no response from the AO, the appeal is being decided as per facts o…

Shri Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2384/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2384/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs Income-Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2460/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Harjivanbhai C. Patel, C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Income-Tax, Vs Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pd. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Ahmedabad Dated 21St July, 2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…7 ITR 808 (Ker.) iv) Dwarka Prasad Vs. ITO 63 ITD 1 (ITAT - Pat) v) B.L. Choudhury Vs. CIT 105 ITR 371 (Ori.) vi) ITO Vs. Industrial Roadways (2007) 19(I) ITCL 460 (ITAT-Mum). vii) CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). viii) CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) In view of ratio laid down in above case laws, the additional evidences so submitted are decided to be admitted. The jurisdictional directions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) are also being relied. As there is no response from the AO, the appeal is being decided as per facts o…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…rbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota . 4.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and also relied on following case laws for enhancement of income and rejection of books of account. 1. CIT vs. Nuebheram Daluram,224 ITR 610 (SC) 2. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3. Popular Automobiles vs. CIT, 187 ITR 86 (Ker.) 4. CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 5. CIT vs. Maharaja Shree Umed Mills Ltd. ,192 ITR 565 (Raj.) 6. Kachawala Gems vs. JCIT , 288 ITR 10 (SC) 7. Narsingdas Ramkishan Pungaliya vs. ACIT, 184 CTR 448 (Raj) 4.6 We h…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

…by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage, and hence, such enhancement should not lead to a new source of income. 18.1 The other view relying upon the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Kanpur Syndicate Ltd., 53 ITR 225 (SC) and CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) is that such power of enhancement can even lead to an addition in respect of a new source of income. In CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram,224 ITR 610 (SC), the Apex Court relied upon the three judges Bench decisions in the cases of Jute Corporation of India v . CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) and CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, 53 ITR 229 (SC) to hold that the C…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…ts :- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT 187 ITR 688(SC) ii) CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225(SC) iii) Narondas Manordas v. CIT 31 ITR 909 (Bom.) iv) Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited v. CIT 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB) v) Nirbheram Deluram v. CIT 224 ITR 610(SC) The CIT(A) observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, remand proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee company has explained that it issued preferential shares to M/s BWGL at the rate of Rs.12/- per share after complying with the requisite formalities and with due approval of RBI, BSE and SEBI guidelines on prefere…

Haresh H. Melwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1757/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Molti B. TotlaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…discussed in assessment order i.e. appellant’s claim of expenses against the capital gains, therefore, the undersigned being CIT(A) has power to rectify and mistake commited by A.O. in the assessment order. The Supreme Court in the case of Nirbhayram Duleram 224 ITR 610 held that in appeal to the Appellate Commissioner, the Appellate Commissioner is entitled to direct additions in respect of items of income not considered by A.O. On this issue reliance is also placed in the cases of : (A.Y. 2007-08)  Deoria Oxygen Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 210 CTR (All.) 509,  Smt. Ishrawati Devi vs. ITO (2008) 114 TTJ (All.) 541,  CI…