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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…n 595 (Delhi High Court) b) Hari Mohan Sharma VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws rel…

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

…minus with that of the ITO, that she can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

…minus with that of the ITO, that she can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Paramasivam Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

ITA 281/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…n 595 (Delhi High Court) b) Hari Mohan Sharma VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws rel…

Bimla, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-38(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

…deleted. Hence, impugned addition is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed accordingly.” 12. He relied on the following case law :- (i) Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT 179 ITD 310; (ii) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443; (iii) CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556; (iv) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864; (v) CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 399 ITR 524 (Ker); (vi) Nababharat Shiksha Parishad vs. DCIT in ITA No.163/CTK/2015 dated 11 October 2017; (vii) Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. ITO 171 ITD 116; (viii) Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd. vs. CIT6 86 taxmann.com 35; (ix) Cairn India Ltd. vs…

Patliputra Builders Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 57/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Patliputra Builders Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 56/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Patliputra Builders Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 55/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Patliputra Builders Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 54/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Patliputra Builders Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 53/PAT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 52/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…alty leviable @ 300%. The assessee has relied upon following case laws: Meetu Bansal Vs. DCIT (Uttarakhand High Court) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Syed Maqsoodulla Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 010. As regards the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, he submitted that the preliminary requirement for invoking penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act is basis of the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee no such statement was recorded and in support to that an affidavit has been filed…

Vimladevi Agrotech Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), Kota

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…minus with that of the ITO, that she can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Ramesh Gupta, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…o mere territorial jurisdictional objections. The Sr. DR placing reliance on the decisions in cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh [1964] 51 ITR 566 (Pat.); Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC); Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal [1959]36 ITR 9 (SC); Sarupchand and Hukumchand [1953] 23 ITR 382 (MP) and Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (Gau), submitted that the jurisdictional issues could not be raised after the 7 completion of assessment as the same was not within the time prescribed under section 124(3) of the Act. 8. We heard…

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

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

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…essee were rendered without considering the Explanation to Section 251 of the Act. The ld. DR relied on the following case laws:- 1) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (SC) 44 ITR 891 :-13-: ITA. Nos: 620 & 635/Chny/2020 2) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (SC) 66 ITR 443 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 6) The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (Chennai ITAT) in ITA no 981/Chny/2020 9.4 We have heard the rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the order…

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…lied on by the Id. Counsel for the assessee were rendered without considering the Explanation to Section 251 of the Act. The Id. DR relied on the following case laws:- 1) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (SC) 44 ITR 891 2) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (SC) 66 ITR 443 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 6) The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (Chennai ITAT) in ITA no 981/Chny/2020 9.4 We have heard the rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders…

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…essee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary facts for computation of income 6.2 The ld.Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Bahadur Hardutroy Motilala Chamaria reported in [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal and Co., reported in [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Del). The ld. Counsel argued that in view of the above, the CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the assessment on the above three issues because these issues are not arising out of the assessment order or not connected with earning o…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…his scenario, can this be a subject matter of enhancement by the learned CIT(A) is to be looked into. In this regard, the Id. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutray Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443 (SC) wherein the facts of the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision rendered thereon are as under:- 4.3. Hence, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, in any case, the provision for deferred tax could not be the subject matter of addition in the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. 4.6. Even on merits, we fin…

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 678/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax Officer in the order appealed against. A similar view was expressed in CIT v. RaiBahadurHardutroyMotilalChamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). That also related to a case under section 31(3) of the old Act. It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the old Act was restricted to the subject-matter of the assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the assessing officer from the point of view of taxability…

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 677/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax Officer in the order appealed against. A similar view was expressed in CIT v. RaiBahadurHardutroyMotilalChamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). That also related to a case under section 31(3) of the old Act. It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the old Act was restricted to the subject-matter of the assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the assessing officer from the point of view of taxability…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1343/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax Officer in the order appealed against. A similar view was expressed in CIT v. RaiBahadurHardutroyMotilalChamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). That also related to a case under section 31(3) of the old Act. It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the old Act was restricted to the subject-matter of the assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the assessing officer from the point of view of taxability…