CIT v. S. Nelliappan

66 ITR 722Supreme Court of India1967#1303 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Nelliappan authority for?

An inference drawn by tax authorities regarding the connection between undisclosed income and unexplained cash credits or other unaccounted assets must be upheld if not based on speculation, even without direct evidence. This principle confirms the telescoping of unexplained income, preventing double taxation by allowing a single source of undisclosed funds to explain multiple additions.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Nelliappan · 66 ITR 722 SC · telescoping unexplained income · unexplained cash credits · undisclosed income assessment · inference of fact · no direct evidence · double taxation prevention · assessment of additions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 142amat creditsection 150surrender of incomeaccumulated profitssection 158bdsection 80icsection 2(22)shell companydeemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)retracted statement

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Nelliappan

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…on. It was stated that the same does not require investigation of new facts and therefore, it was requested that the additional ground may be admitted in the interest of justice and equity. 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 held that "In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal." In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court since no ne…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…e Tribunal to the determination of question raised before the Department authorities. All questions, whether of law or of facts, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal." 23. In the case of CIT v. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722, the Supreme Court once again considered the scope of section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court reiterated that in hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 memorandum of appeal and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds…

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234Section 69

…e to substantiate his assertions as to the source of his capital outlay.' 7.2 The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. K.S.M.Guruswamy Nadar & Sons (149 ITR 127) after referring to decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nelliappan (66 ITR 722) upheld the telescoping of business profits (suppressed) with addition of cash credit. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Kuppuswami Mudaliar vs. CIT (51 ITR 757) held that amount added to income in earlier years on estimate basis is to be treated as real income and can be considered for explaining investment in subsequent year. The Ho…

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

…e for assessment year 2010-2011(supra), the additional ground may be admitted in the interest of justice and equity. 10.1 The additional ground does not require investigation of new facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Nelliappan reported in 66 ITR 722 (SC) had held that “In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal.” Since no new facts is required for adjudication of the abo…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

…e for assessment year 2010-2011(supra), the additional ground may be admitted in the interest of justice and equity. 10.1 The additional ground does not require investigation of new facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Nelliappan reported in 66 ITR 722 (SC) had held that “In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal.” Since no new facts is required for adjudication of the abo…

M/S. Hindustan Marble and Granite, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 871/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)

…ITA No.871/Bang/2019 M/s. Hindustan Marble and Granit, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Hindustan Marble and Granite No.5, Lalbagh Road, ACIT Wilson Garden Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO :AAAFH8437Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has…

M/S. Ef Information Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 149/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

…ements. Therefore, it was requested that the additional ground may be admitted in the interest of justice and equity. 2.3 The additional ground does not require investigation of new facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Nelliappan reported in 66 ITR 722 (SC) had held that “In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal.” In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court si…

Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.1246/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dell International Services India Income Tax (Ltu), Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged Entity M/S. Perot Bengaluru. Systems Business Process Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,) 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacv 9201 H Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.1248/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged Entity Income Tax (Ltu), M/S. Perot Systems Business Process Bengaluru. Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacv 9201 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Muzzafar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Assessee By : Shri. T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: It(Tp)A.No.1246/Bang/2015 Is An Appeal By The Revenue While It(Tp)A.No.1248/Bang/2015 Is An Appeal By The Assessee. Both The Appeals Are It(Tp)A Nos.1246 & 1248/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzzafar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 391

…ble on record. In the following judicial pronouncements it has been held that additional grounds which has a bearing on tax llability of an Assessee has to be admitted for adjudication. IT(TP)A Nos.1246 and 1248/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 13 CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein it was held that  Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.  CIT…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.1246/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dell International Services India Income Tax (Ltu), Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged Entity M/S. Perot Bengaluru. Systems Business Process Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,) 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacv 9201 H Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.1248/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged Entity Income Tax (Ltu), M/S. Perot Systems Business Process Bengaluru. Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacv 9201 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Muzzafar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Assessee By : Shri. T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: It(Tp)A.No.1246/Bang/2015 Is An Appeal By The Revenue While It(Tp)A.No.1248/Bang/2015 Is An Appeal By The Assessee. Both The Appeals Are It(Tp)A Nos.1246 & 1248/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzzafar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 391

…ble on record. In the following judicial pronouncements it has been held that additional grounds which has a bearing on tax llability of an Assessee has to be admitted for adjudication. IT(TP)A Nos.1246 and 1248/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 13 CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein it was held that  Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.  CIT…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He 9 I.T.A No. 260/Kol/2019 Satish Kumar Lakhmani, AY 2014-15 submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…aimed by the Assessee is merely telescoping of the said income into the increase in its WIP of the project from where such receipts were generated. On this we find support from the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Neliiappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] in which it has been held as under: "It is true that there is no direct evidence of any connection between the cash credit entries and the income withheld from the books of account by the assessees. But if the Tribunal inferred that there was a connection between the profits withheld from the books and the cash credit entries, it cannot be s…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…aimed by the Assessee is merely telescoping of the said income into the increase in its WIP of the project from where such receipts were generated. On this we find support from the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Neliiappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] in which it has been held as under: "It is true that there is no direct evidence of any connection between the cash credit entries and the income withheld from the books of account by the assessees. But if the Tribunal inferred that there was a connection between the profits withheld from the books and the cash credit entries, it cannot be s…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Gopichand Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Pravesh Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ections of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross receipts in the consequential order to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. In his reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that a legal ground can be taken by any party at any stage of the case by way of argument. He submitted that in India, the head of the family decides transactions to be done by all the family members and hence it is not correct for the ld. D/R to find fault that all the members of the family have purchased and sold shares. 7.1. He furthe…

I2 Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 391

…or the Assessee while reiterating plea as set forth in the application for admission of additional ground has further placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the plea for admission of additional ground. • CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein it was held that Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT […