CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd.

171 ITR 530High Court1988#3647 most cited

What is CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. authority for?

The appellate authority can entertain a claim for special deduction made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, even if not originally included in the return of income, if the omission was not willful or unreasonable.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries · Section 80J · special deduction · claim during assessment · appellate authority · AAC · ITO · grounds of appeal · willful omission

Sections most often in play

Section 153C Section 153A Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 147 Section 132(4)Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statement section 158bb section 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 34 section 292b block period admission of additional evidence section 153b section 132(1)section 158b

Judgments citing CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd.

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he sa"sfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not wilful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduc"on was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT vs. Kanpur Cool Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT…

Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he sa"sfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not wilful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduc"on was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT vs. Kanpur Cool Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…round of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he satisfied that the omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful and unreasonable. Dealing with such a power, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom), held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the ITO failed to consider the same, it was open to the AAC to entertain the claim. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that the powers of the CIT(…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Insecticides (India) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1296/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

…ch the Board has directed the AOs not to take 6 ITA No.1296/Del./2016 advantage of assessee's ignorance or mistake. They have also cited following judgements in their support:- 1. NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Prabhu Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. 171 ITR 530(Bom.); 3. Steel Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 86 Taxman 440 (MP); 4. CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 229 ITR 137 (Kar.). In the light of above said submissions and the decisions of various courts it is apparent that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing a capital receipt as income. Therefore, I direct that the excise duty refund be treat…

Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3083/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…case laws to contend that the claim should have been admitted by the AO:- a) CIT V/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 0336 (Bom.) b) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd V/s. CIT 220 ITR 383 (SC) c) CIT V/s. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd 171 ITR 530 (Bombay) d) Steel Ingots V/s. CIT, 86 Taxman 440 (MP) e) CIT V/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. 233 ITR 429 (MP) f) CIT V/s.Motor Industries Company Ltd. 229 ITR 137 (Karn.) 6. I have duly considered the above submissions of the appellant. The CBDT Circular relied upon by the appellant, is dated 11/04/1955, hence it is a very old Circular, and v…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1 –vs- M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders in ITA No.3908/2010 vide its order dated 21.06.2012 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1988], 171 ITR 530 (Bombay 5. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurrance Co. LTD., reported in 81 ITR 303 (DEL) have held that, 14. Further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim or modify a cla…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1 –vs- M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders in ITA No.3908/2010 vide its order dated 21.06.2012 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1988], 171 ITR 530 (Bombay 5. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurrance Co. LTD., reported in 81 ITR 303 (DEL) have held that, 14. Further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim or modify a cla…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1 –vs- M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders in ITA No.3908/2010 vide its order dated 21.06.2012 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1988], 171 ITR 530 (Bombay 5. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurrance Co. LTD., reported in 81 ITR 303 (DEL) have held that, 14. Further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim or modify a cla…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1 –vs- M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders in ITA No.3908/2010 vide its order dated 21.06.2012 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1988], 171 ITR 530 (Bombay 5. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurrance Co. LTD., reported in 81 ITR 303 (DEL) have held that, 14. Further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim or modify a cla…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Anupama Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1 –vs- M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders in ITA No.3908/2010 vide its order dated 21.06.2012 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1988], 171 ITR 530 (Bombay 5. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurrance Co. LTD., reported in 81 ITR 303 (DEL) have held that, 14. Further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim or modify a cla…

CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P) Ltd. (171 ITR 530) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax