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 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…terminus with that of the ITO, that he 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 Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461 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 under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as,…

Melongos India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…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. Rai 12 Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (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…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…99] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 was restricted to the subject matter of the assessment or the sources of income which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability of the assessee, and that it is not open to the Appella…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…99] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 was restricted to the subject matter of the assessment or the sources of income which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability of the assessee, and that it is not open to the Appella…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 26/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JR Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. H-36-37-38, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Dausa, (Rajasthan) PAN No.: AAEFJ 4186 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 27/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 OM Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. E-6A, Dausa, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Agra Road, Dausa, (Rajas…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 26/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JR Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. H-36-37-38, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Dausa, (Rajasthan) PAN No.: AAEFJ 4186 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 27/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 OM Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. E-6A, Dausa, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Agra Road, Dausa, (Rajas…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 26/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JR Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. H-36-37-38, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Dausa, (Rajasthan) PAN No.: AAEFJ 4186 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 27/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 OM Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. E-6A, Dausa, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Agra Road, Dausa, (Rajas…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Mohan Sukumaran Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Bindu Bhawan, Near Carmel of Income Tax- 1(1), Vs. School, Raigarh (C.G.) Aayakar Bhavan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AJFPS7530K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Smt. Richa Khatri, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : सु…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Mohan Sukumaran Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Bindu Bhawan, Near Carmel of Income Tax- 1(1), Vs. School, Raigarh (C.G.) Aayakar Bhavan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AJFPS7530K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Smt. Richa Khatri, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : सु…

M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

For Appellant: Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…he Act to add income not at all considered by the AO? Referring to the catena of decisions including the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (supra) and in case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC), the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB), besides various other decisions, it held that the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say, sections 147, 148 and 263.…

M/S Arjun Transport Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4984/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4984/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2016-17) M/S. Arjun Transport Company Private Limited, Flat No.414, Empire Complex, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aabca-5913-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…disallowance/addition from a source other than what was the subject matter of assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee to support his contentions placed reliance on following decisions: i. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, 66 ITR 443(SC); ii. Lokenath Tolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82 (Bom.); and iii. Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2953/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 decided on 31/01/2019. Without prejudice to the primary contentions made in respect of ground no.2, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that if at all disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of t…

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…query) are the key issues. I am of the considered view that the assessment order satisfies neither of the twin parameters. The issues were not even given a judicial and judicious consideration by the AO. ln CIT v.Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC)a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Hon'ble Supreme Court explained this as follows: it was explained what "considered" by AO implies:" In this context "consideration" does not mean "incidental" or "collateral" examination of any matter by the Income -tax Officer in the process of assessment. There must be something in the assessment order to 7…

Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…terminus with that of the ITO, that he 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 Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and CIT v.B.N.Bhattachargee [1979] 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 under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Everon Educational Society, Bhimavaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-1(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 172/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…terminus with that of the ITO, that he 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 Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and CIT v.B.N.Bhattachargee [1979] 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 under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…essee also placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. CIT vs Sardari Lal & Co. 120 Taxman 595 (Del.)(FB) ii. CIT vs Union Tyers 107 Taxman 447 (Del) iii. CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) iv. CIT vs Rai Bahadur Hardutrey Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) v. CIT, Thrissur vs. B.P. Sharafudin 252 Taxman 326 (Ker) vi. Bikran Singh vs DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 230(Del.) vii. Ram Infrastructure Ltd. Vs JCIT, Jalgaon, 10 18. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 19. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of Asses…

M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Act to add income not at all considered by the AO? Referring to the catena of decisions including the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (supra) and in case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC), the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB), besides various other decisions, it held that the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say, sections 147, 148 and 263.…

The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…relied on a number of case-law including:-  Gurinder Mohan Singh Nidrajog vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 170 Gurinder Mohan Singh Nidrajog vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 170 CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)  CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 66 ITR 443( SC)  CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria ( 1967) Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria ( 1967) 66 ITR 443  CIT vs. Union Tyres reported in 240 ITR 556 [Delhi] CIT vs. Union Tyres reported in 240 ITR 556 [Delhi] CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi)  CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. [  CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. CIT vs. National C…

Ace Infracity Developers P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1087/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 115BSection 132Section 2Section 69

…on’ble Apex Court, High Court and Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT as under: (a) Sh. Vikrant Puri vs ACIT; 142 & 5789/Del/2013; dt. 04/03/2016 (b) Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 2013-TIOI-903-ITAT-DEL (c) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del)(FB) (e) CIT(A) vs. Union Tyres; 240 ITR 556 (Del) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding as to why the set off of depreciation requires to be confirmed and relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have he…

M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri P.K.Gadale(Ita Nos.490 To 503(Bang)/2019) (Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Pvt.Ltd., No.10, 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, J.P.Nagar-Iii Phase, Bangalore-560078 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

…se notice is fatal. 5.4 The Appellant places reliance on the following decisions of various courts in support of its contentions: (i) Saheli Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 126 (Gujarat); (ii) CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443; (iii) CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC); 5.5 With regard to the opinion of the CIT A that the payments are of composite nature and liable to be treated as Royalty, the Appellant submits that Learned CIT(A) artificially divided the agreement entered between the Appellant and AMS1, USA in to two parts, as one for providing co…

M/S. Waves Data Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4500/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the new source of income which is not permissible. In support, she relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 170 (Del) 8 I.T.A. No.4500/DEL/2016 2. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Union Tyres, (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) 8. On merits, she submitted that the assessee has filed all the necessary documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Arun Agarwal, the Director of the Company and the genuineness of the transaction was duly established. Further, here the Director himself has accepted the tra…