CIT v. NTPC

229 ITR 393Supreme Court of India1998#17279 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. NTPC

Shilpi Sardana, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1425/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Shilpi Sardana, Deputy Commissioner Of B-99, Swastya Vihar, Vs. Income Tax, Lakshmi Nagar, Central Circle-31, S.O. East Delhi. Room No.343, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Pan No.Bwups9736E Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…se an additional ground before an appellate forum has been accepted by various courts. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments: — Jute Corporation of India Ltd v CIT [(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)] — National Thermal Power Co Ltd v CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 393 (SC)] — Maruti Udyog Limited v CIT [252 ITR 482 (Delhi)] In the interest of justice, the Appellant prays that this Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to admit and adjudicate the above-stated additional ground of appeal for which it shall remain most grateful.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that additional ground of appeal fil…

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…n the said notice. Ld. Counsel submits that since the additional grounds raised are purely legal grounds, the same may be admitted. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 393]. 4. Heard rival submissions. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:- “1. The Order levying Penalty under section 271(1) (c) is illegal as there is no satisfaction as to which limb of the section Penalty has been initiated. The AO has initiated penalty in the last para of the Assessment Order for furnishing of inacc…

Deepika Infratech Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 76/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…U/s.271(1)(c ) regarding disallowance of hire charges on Tractors, u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.50,85,000/-. 11.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional ground relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. NTPC, 229 ITR 393.: “On the facts and circumstances of the case) the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and partly upheld by CIT(A) is unsustainable on the facts of the present case and also in law for non-application of mind on part of Assessing Officer as the very basis i.e., penalty show cause notice does not specify whether the notice was for conce…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Deepika Infratech Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1156/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…U/s.271(1)(c ) regarding disallowance of hire charges on Tractors, u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.50,85,000/-. 11.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional ground relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. NTPC, 229 ITR 393.: “On the facts and circumstances of the case) the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and partly upheld by CIT(A) is unsustainable on the facts of the present case and also in law for non-application of mind on part of Assessing Officer as the very basis i.e., penalty show cause notice does not specify whether the notice was for conce…

M/S Deepika Infratech Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1155/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…U/s.271(1)(c ) regarding disallowance of hire charges on Tractors, u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.50,85,000/-. 11.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional ground relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. NTPC, 229 ITR 393.: “On the facts and circumstances of the case) the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and partly upheld by CIT(A) is unsustainable on the facts of the present case and also in law for non-application of mind on part of Assessing Officer as the very basis i.e., penalty show cause notice does not specify whether the notice was for conce…

CIT v. NTPC (229 ITR 393) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax