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

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 34section 292bblock periodadmission of additional evidencesection 153bsection 132(1)section 158b

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

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

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/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
Section 10(38)

…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. Sitansu Sekhar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/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
Section 10(38)

…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. Smt. Kuntala Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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. Parbati Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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. Mamata Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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. Amruta Preetam Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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…

Bnp Paribas India Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani , ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 234C

…, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. Further, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.(1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom). In the case before the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court, the ITO had rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under s. 80J, inter alia, on the ground that the assessee had not claimed it in its return of income. On appeal, the AAC held that since the claim was made by the assessee during the BNP Paribas India Holding P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-…

Msm Discovery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. Further, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.(1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom). In the case before the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court, the ITO had rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under s. 80J, inter alia, on the ground that the assessee had not claimed it in its return of income. On appeal, the AAC held that since the claim was made by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings, the IT…

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…This legal position is by now well settled. The following decisions may be referred to in this regard viz., Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 100 (Madras) CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P.) Ltd [1988] 171 ITR 530 (Bombay) and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bom.).Accordingly, we direct the AO to examine the claim of assessee for deduction on account of goodwill. 17. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee is with regard to disallowance of provision for expenses. The ld. counsel for assessee could not point out as to how the exp…

M/S Hirsch Bracelet India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3392/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50

…pinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and therefore, does not merit any interference." 21. He submitted that similar decisions have been rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases: CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries (P.) Ltd [1988] 171 ITR 530 (Bombay) and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 23 taxmann.com 23 (Born.). He pointed out that during the assessment proceedings and the proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted the details of the transfer of lease hold right in the land and building on the land along with the supporting documents and neither the AO nor the…

Strapping Solutions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3516/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punniya, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Divya Bajpai, D.R
Section 10ASection 139Section 80I

…rong section but the right claim was made by the M/s. Strapping Solutions P. Ltd. assessee before the finalisation of the assessment proceedings. He, in this respect, has relied upon thefollowing decisions: 1. CIT vs. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 530 (Bom.) 2. DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 39 5. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that though the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) had not considered the claim of the assessee because the revised return was not filed within the time stipulated under section 139 of the Act, the assessee is still entit…