CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.

251 ITR 864High Court2001#364 most cited

What is CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. authority for?

An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.

240

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. · Section 251 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 263 · new source of income · appellate authority · Assessing Officer · jurisdiction

Also reported as

120 Taxmann 595

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 147Section 263Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 251Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)legal expensesddtsection 31section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)preponderance of probabilityprincipal officershell company

Judgments citing CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ereinabove on which the ld. CIT(A) has made enhancement, nor they were part of the return of income. Therefore, in our considered opinion, enhancement is bad in law. 21. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sardari Lal and Company 251 ITR 864 had the occasion to consider an identical issue on the following facts: “The question of first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income was referred for fresh adjudication. The revenue contended that proceedings before the first appellate authority cannot b restricted to only the matters considered and decided by…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ereinabove on which the ld. CIT(A) has made enhancement, nor they were part of the return of income. Therefore, in our considered opinion, enhancement is bad in law. 21. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sardari Lal and Company 251 ITR 864 had the occasion to consider an identical issue on the following facts: “The question of first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income was referred for fresh adjudication. The revenue contended that proceedings before the first appellate authority cannot b restricted to only the matters considered and decided by…

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

…e to the I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 38 Assessment Year: 2018-19 first appellate authority. Eventually, Sardari Lal upheld the decision in Union Tyres.” The ld AR mentioned that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co [2001] 251 ITR 864 that the first appellate authority has no power to take into account a new source of income. 12.2. Further in argument the ld. AR placed that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerela in the case of CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin [2017] 87 taxmann.com 330has held that the appellate authority has no power u/s 251 of the Act to at income not considered by the AO.T…

Apeejay Shipping Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T CC - III, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT,DR
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251Section 251(2)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Apeejay Shipping Ltd. Assistant Commissioner of 1st Floor, 15, Apeejay House, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata. (PAN: AADCS7605P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Respondent by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Present appeal by the assessee is arising out of…

Taiyab Chaudhary S/O Yakub Chaudhary, Baghpat vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini Gautam, Sr. DR

…le framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 18. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sardari Lal & Co.251 ITR 864. 19. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus to that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) can do what the Assessing Officer can do. 20. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the Assessing Officer…

ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon vs. Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3749/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…le framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 51. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sardari Lal & Co.251 ITR 864. 52. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus to that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) can do what the Assessing Officer can do. 53. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the Assessing Officer…

Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…le framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 51. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sardari Lal & Co.251 ITR 864. 52. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus to that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) can do what the Assessing Officer can do. 53. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the Assessing Officer…

Pramod Ratan Patil, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 7329/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

…the whole assessment to correct the Assessing Officer not only regarding a matter raised by the assessee in appeal but also regarding any other matter considered by the Assessing Officer and determined in assessment. 069. In CIT v. Sardari Lal and Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) [FB], Honourable Delhi High court held that inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147, or section 148, or even s…

Asst CIT 3, Mumbai vs. Pramod Ratan Patil, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 3851/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

…the whole assessment to correct the Assessing Officer not only regarding a matter raised by the assessee in appeal but also regarding any other matter considered by the Assessing Officer and determined in assessment. 069. In CIT v. Sardari Lal and Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) [FB], Honourable Delhi High court held that inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147, or section 148, or even s…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch vs. Salya India Private Limited, Bharuch

In the result, the ground No

ITA 438/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…support his various contentions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  H. K. Pujara Vs ACIT (ITA No. 2034/Mum/2014 dated 09.05.2016, with corrigendum of even date),  Shapoorji Pallanji Vs CIT (44 ITR 891),  Sardari Lal & Co. PCIT (251 ITR 864 (Delhi FB),  DCIT Vs Phoenix Lamps (79 ITR 276 Delhi-Trib),  Orrisa Corporation Vs CIT (159 ITR 78-SC),  Daulatram Rawatmal (87 ITR 349-SC),  Rohini Builders Vs CIT (256 ITR 360 Guj),  Gaurav Triyung Singh Vs CIT (243 ITR 531- Bom),  PCIT Vs Ami Industries India Private Limited (424 ITR 219- Bom),  Sarogi Credit Corporation (103 ITR 334-Pa…

Devender Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 124/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Akshit, Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…isdictional notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also relied on the decision of National Thermal Power Company Ltd., vs., CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and also decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.-HC) to the effect that legal grounds can be raised at any time before the Appellate Authority. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further drew the attention of Bench that on the wrong advice of a consultant, the assessee challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority before the Hon’ble Allahabad 6 ITA.No.124/Del./2021 Shri Devende…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 298 & 299/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 cuke Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. ACIT/DCIT, Ltd., Vs. Circle-2, 41, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort, Jaipur. Jaipur-302001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8756G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahend…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 298 & 299/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 cuke Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. ACIT/DCIT, Ltd., Vs. Circle-2, 41, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort, Jaipur. Jaipur-302001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8756G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahend…

Sunil Eknath Loharkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

ITA 1785/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1457/Pun/2017 & Ita No. 1785/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1457/PUN/2017 & ITA No. 1785/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Eknath Loharkar, D-223, Meri Colony, Dindori Road, Nashik – 422 004. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant PAN : ABMPL0633R बनाम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ACIT, Circle -1, Nashik Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 आदेश / ORDER…

Sunil Eknath Loharkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

ITA 1457/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1457/Pun/2017 & Ita No. 1785/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1457/PUN/2017 & ITA No. 1785/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Eknath Loharkar, D-223, Meri Colony, Dindori Road, Nashik – 422 004. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant PAN : ABMPL0633R बनाम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ACIT, Circle -1, Nashik Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 आदेश / ORDER…

Bharath Promoters, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 3129/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

For Appellant: S Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

…from sale of the asset constituted a new source of income and therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was liable to be struck down in view the following judgments/decisions - CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry: 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sundari Lal & Co.: 251 ITR 864 (Del HC), and Dr. L. Siarvanan Vs. I.T.A. No. 3129/Chny/2017 & 115/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 and 2015-16 ITO: ITA No. 1617/2018 (Tribunal – Chennai). He further submitted that even the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by including in the Remand Report observations on the issues on which remand was not sought by the C…

Bharath Promotors, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-3, Chennai

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 115/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

For Appellant: S Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

…from sale of the asset constituted a new source of income and therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was liable to be struck down in view the following judgments/decisions - CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry: 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sundari Lal & Co.: 251 ITR 864 (Del HC), and Dr. L. Siarvanan Vs. I.T.A. No. 3129/Chny/2017 & 115/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 and 2015-16 ITO: ITA No. 1617/2018 (Tribunal – Chennai). He further submitted that even the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by including in the Remand Report observations on the issues on which remand was not sought by the C…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…. Learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the aforesaid decision cited by learned DR was considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the light of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) and the Court held after referring to decisions in the case of Shappoorji Pallonji Mistry (supra) and Rai Bahadur Harudtroy-Motilal Chamaria (supra) the decision rendered in the case of Nirbheram Daluram (supra) observed that in the decision rendered in the case of Nirbheram Daluram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court only commented on pow…

Balaji Construction, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…legality as it amount to hold together a new head of income in first appellate proceedings not sustainable in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The same also stands deleted therefore. 3 No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. Delay of 850 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned since majority of this prescribed limitation falls in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak. The Revenue’s is also fair enough in not disputing the assessee’s sol…

Vijay Baban Gunjal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(4) Pune, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 372/PUN/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. Sasar
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…e under a different head runs contrary to the settled contours of his lower appellate jurisdiction as held in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyers (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sadari Lal & Company (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi). I therefore delete the impugned section 69A addition for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 4. Delay of 101 days in filing of the instant appeal attributable to various communication gaps and outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic at its initial stage, stands condoned. 3 5. This assessee’s appeal is a…