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 Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

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

ITA 1323/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…

M/S Mangala Investments Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

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

ITA 1322/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…

Smrat Infocom, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2836/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Smart Infocom, फनाभ/ Ito, Erstwhile Wd 15(3)(3), Now Ito-33(3)(4), 1St Floor, 306/307, Plot No.9, Vs. 338, Sterling Industrial Premises C-12, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Ltd., Ramachandras Lane Extn., Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai. Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abefs1558C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C Modi & MsFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 251(2)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Smart Infocom, फनाभ/ ITO, Erstwhile Wd 15(3)(3), Now ITO-33(3)(4), 1st Floor, 306/307, Plot No.9, Vs. 338, Sterling Industrial Premises C-12, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Ltd., Ramachandras Lane Extn., BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai. Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : ABEFS1558C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Rashmikant C Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen,…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hill Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(2), M/S Malabar Hill Club R. No.571, Aaykar Bhavan Limited, बनाम/ M.K. Road, Il Palazzo, B.K. Kher Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacw3868M

Section 144

…argued that the FAA had no power to enhance income to consider the item of income which had not been considered by AO while framing assessment. The assessee relied upon the cases of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry(44 ITR 891),Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria(66 ITR 443).It was contended that 4 M/s Malabar Hill Club Ltd. principles of mutuality could be applied where there is a complete identity with contributors to the common fund and the persons entitled to participate in the surplus of funds, that all the members who were contributing to the fund were not entitled to participate in the surplus, there were 13 t…

Ajoy Rudra, North 24 Parganas vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 51, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1788/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 1788/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ajoy Rudra (Pan: Adepr2527G) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-51, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2016

For Appellant: Shri Aloke Kr. Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kr. Singh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…) wherein the jurisdictional High Court while following the decision of the Court of Appeal in King Vs. Income-tax Special Commissioners (1936)1 KB 487 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 was pleased to observe as follows: “On behalf of the respondents it is urged that as the company itself asked for the withdrawal of the appeal, it does not lie in the mouth of the company to say that the order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing withdrawal of the appeal was without jurisdiction. The company made the application under the circumsta…

Free India Assurance Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5934/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle - 6(2) M/S. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5Th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent M/S. Free India Assurance Acit, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member DCIT, Circle - 6(2) M/s. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN - AAACF3879K Appellant Respondent M/s. Free India Assurance ACIT, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN - AAACF3879K Appellant Respondent Revenue by:…

DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai vs. Free India Assurance Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle - 6(2) M/S. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5Th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent M/S. Free India Assurance Acit, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member DCIT, Circle - 6(2) M/s. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN - AAACF3879K Appellant Respondent M/s. Free India Assurance ACIT, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN - AAACF3879K Appellant Respondent Revenue by:…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, this Appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 608/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56(2)(vi)

…lled and the addition may be deleted. In support of his arguments, he cited the following case laws:- a) CIT vs. Union Tyres 250 ITR 556 (Del. ) b) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) c) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2013 TIOL 903 ITAT- Del. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that the same may be restored. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel o…

Vikrant Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, this Appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 5789/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56(2)(vi)

…lled and the addition may be deleted. In support of his arguments, he cited the following case laws:- a) CIT vs. Union Tyres 250 ITR 556 (Del. ) b) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) c) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2013 TIOL 903 ITAT- Del. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that the same may be restored. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel o…

Vikrant Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, this Appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 142/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56(2)(vi)

…lled and the addition may be deleted. In support of his arguments, he cited the following case laws:- a) CIT vs. Union Tyres 250 ITR 556 (Del. ) b) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) c) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2013 TIOL 903 ITAT- Del. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that the same may be restored. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel o…

Waman Hari Pethe Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7105/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5152/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.7105/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A N D आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6159/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ Waman Hari Pethe Sons, Acit, Cir 15(1), 110, Vikas Paradise, Matru Mandir, Tardev, Vs. L.B.S. Road, Mumbai Mulund (W), Mumbai -400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.C. Tiwari Uma Mahadeokar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :07.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :07.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Preferred Against Three Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-26, Mumbai Dated 5.4.2010, 14.9.2012 & 13.8.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

…e Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) is without notice and is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy MOtilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 238 ITR 268 (Del). It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on this count only the appellate order need to be quashed. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO and also relied upon the findings of the Ld. C…

Waman Hari Pethe Sons, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5152/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5152/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.7105/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A N D आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6159/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ Waman Hari Pethe Sons, Acit, Cir 15(1), 110, Vikas Paradise, Matru Mandir, Tardev, Vs. L.B.S. Road, Mumbai Mulund (W), Mumbai -400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.C. Tiwari Uma Mahadeokar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :07.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :07.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Preferred Against Three Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-26, Mumbai Dated 5.4.2010, 14.9.2012 & 13.8.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

…e Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) is without notice and is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy MOtilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 238 ITR 268 (Del). It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on this count only the appellate order need to be quashed. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO and also relied upon the findings of the Ld. C…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2861/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…opportunity to the assessee. Further, in the following cases, it has been held that the Ld CIT(A) was not entitled to bring in any new sources of income:- a). CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (44 ITR 891 SC) b). CIT v Rai Bahadur Harduttroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443) c). CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556 Del HC) d.) CIT v. Sardarilal & Co. (251 ITR 864 Del HC FB). 45. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in the decision of Ld CIT(A) and accordingly direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.40,31,668/- directed to be made by the Ld CIT(A). 46. In the result, the appeal fil…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2860/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…opportunity to the assessee. Further, in the following cases, it has been held that the Ld CIT(A) was not entitled to bring in any new sources of income:- a). CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (44 ITR 891 SC) b). CIT v Rai Bahadur Harduttroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443) c). CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556 Del HC) d.) CIT v. Sardarilal & Co. (251 ITR 864 Del HC FB). 45. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in the decision of Ld CIT(A) and accordingly direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.40,31,668/- directed to be made by the Ld CIT(A). 46. In the result, the appeal fil…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2251/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…opportunity to the assessee. Further, in the following cases, it has been held that the Ld CIT(A) was not entitled to bring in any new sources of income:- a). CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (44 ITR 891 SC) b). CIT v Rai Bahadur Harduttroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443) c). CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556 Del HC) d.) CIT v. Sardarilal & Co. (251 ITR 864 Del HC FB). 45. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in the decision of Ld CIT(A) and accordingly direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.40,31,668/- directed to be made by the Ld CIT(A). 46. In the result, the appeal fil…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2250/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…opportunity to the assessee. Further, in the following cases, it has been held that the Ld CIT(A) was not entitled to bring in any new sources of income:- a). CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (44 ITR 891 SC) b). CIT v Rai Bahadur Harduttroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443) c). CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556 Del HC) d.) CIT v. Sardarilal & Co. (251 ITR 864 Del HC FB). 45. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in the decision of Ld CIT(A) and accordingly direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.40,31,668/- directed to be made by the Ld CIT(A). 46. In the result, the appeal fil…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advert Communication, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri K. Sampath, Raja Kumar, Advocates
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 69C

…sessment order in respect of all such matters even to prejudice or against the assessee enjoying said powers including power of enhancement of assessment. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with these powers in the case of CIT vs Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) it was held that in the powers of the first appellate authority under the Act, no analogy can be drawn between CIT(A) and first appellate authority empowered under CPC because it is only the assessee who has been given right to appeal against assessment order and if there is no appeal by the assessee, the assessment orde…

Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/322/2005HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 132Section 158Section 158BSection 68

…of the order of assessment, though might have been discussed by the Assessing Officer during the course of hearing before him, incidentally or collateral examination as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, 66 ITR 443. This is a ratio of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sardari Lal & Sons 251 ITR 864 (Delhi). The submission, thus, was that where an Assessing Officer has failed to make an addition or disallowance with regard to an item of income or expenditure, though has dealt the same in the course of assessment proceeding, same ca…

Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-322/2005HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 132Section 158Section 158BSection 68

…of the order of assessment, though might have been discussed by the Assessing Officer during the course of hearing before him, incidentally or collateral examination as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, 66 ITR 443. This is a ratio of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sardari Lal & Sons 251 ITR 864 (Delhi). The submission, thus, was that where an Assessing Officer has failed to make an addition or disallowance with regard to an item of income or expenditure, though has dealt the same in the course of assessment proceeding, same ca…