CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria

66 ITR 443Supreme Court of India1967#365 most cited

What is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria authority for?

The appellate authority cannot enhance an assessment by considering a source of income that was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The scope of appellate power is limited to the subject matter considered by the Assessing Officer.

239

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria · section 31(3) · appellate enhancement · Assessing Officer's scope · undisclosed income · appellate jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 153ASection 251Section 69ASection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 251(l)(a)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)section 245halegal expensessection 31ddtsection 251(2)preponderance of probabilityprincipal officer

Judgments citing CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the sh…

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 similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai :- 10 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the shares are held by the company as stock in tr…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as t…

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 similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai :- 10 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the shares are held by the company as stock in tr…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as t…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the sh…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority. Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the shares are held by the company as stock in tra…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as t…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the sh…

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 similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai :- 10 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the shares are held by the company as stock in tr…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as t…

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 similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai :- 10 -: M/s. Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the shares are held by the company as stock in tr…

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)

…d. In the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is not available to the first appellate authority, Ld. Counsel also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443] (SC) and CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891] (SC) which :- 10 -: M/s. Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd., support the proposition that AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering the new source of income. 7.2. Coming to the merits of the issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has adopted Rs. 10/- as the cost price as the sh…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3612 & 3613/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., ACIT, Circle- Noida, A- Wing (3rd Floor), D- 3, Noida. District Center Saket, Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAACL1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Ramit Katyal, Adv. Department by : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR : 19-04-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 18-07-2018 O R D E R PER R.…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3612 & 3613/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., ACIT, Circle- Noida, A- Wing (3rd Floor), D- 3, Noida. District Center Saket, Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAACL1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Ramit Katyal, Adv. Department by : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR : 19-04-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 18-07-2018 O R D E R PER R.…

Braham Dutt Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for

ITA 7577/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 249(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 BRAHAM DUTT SHARMA, VS. ITO, WARD 1(5), S/O SH. KANTI KUMAR, GHAZIABAD H.NO. 7/7, SHIPRA SUNCITY-II, VAIBHAV KHAND PALAM ROAD, INDRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: ARSPS0491C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 31.10.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad relevant to assessment…

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 3560/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhthe Boston Consulting Group Principal Commissioner Of (India) Private Ltd, 14Th Floor, Income –Tax -3 Mumbai, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 227, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. Bhupendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

…during the relevant financial year. The claim of written off was allowable under the law. 8. In support of his submission the learned senior Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 245 (Delhi). In support of raising additional ground of appeal, the ld. counsel submits that the additional grounds are related with merit of the case and arising out of order passed by ld. PCIT. No further investigation of facts is required to bring o…

Gold View Financial Services Ltd., Howrah vs. ACIT, C. C.2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1125/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1125/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nicolas Murmu, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 246A(1)(ba)

…ssee refuses to appear at the hearing, CIT(A) can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment.This is emanating From the following judgments: 1. CIT Vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria(SC )66 ITR 443 2. CIT Vs B.N. Bhattachargee (Se) 118 ITR461 In view of above judicial findings and the submission of the appellant/Ld.A.R. I find that the grounds raised by the appellant no longer subsist, do not require adjudication. The appeal therefore stands ‘dismissed’. “ 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the pres…

Centram Broking P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4525/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Centrum Broking Pvt. Ltd Dy. Cit- Range 4(1), बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Mumbai -400 098. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…exercising his powers of enhancement had traversed beyond the limited scope of his jurisdiction. The ld. A.R in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2002) 120 Taxman 595 (Del). Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short D.R’) submitted that the letter dated. 20.12.2010 relied upon was never filed by the assessee with the CIT(A). The ld. D.R submitted that the CIT(A) by enhancing t…

M/S Chitrakala Investment Trade & Business Finance Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1324/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…not have done. It is trite law that in the remand proceedings, the AO is bound to go strictly by the directions of the appellate authority. This principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bhadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamraia (66 ITR 443) at page 450 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (302 ITR 126). The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Rai Bhadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamraia (supra) is extracted below: ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 14 "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is t…