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 367,154 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.

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 27/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

The ACIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tribunalr 17.7 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 17.8 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.…

Indo Office Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3176/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 132Section 133Section 147Section 148

…t of the order of assessment. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ramesh Kumar Pabbi vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5594/Del/2014). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal and Co. 251 ITR 864 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in case of Bikram Singh vs. DCIT (2016) 48 ITR 689. Thus, in light of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the enhancement made by the CIT (A) is untenable in law. 7. As regards to Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relating to non-disposal of objection against re-opening of reassessment proceedings raised by the assesse…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1067/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1066/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1064/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1063/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…bility or to its non taxability and not to any incidental connection‖. 18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been reiterated by the full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(SB). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:- ―Looking from the aforesaid angles, the 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 sec…

Manmohansingh S. Ranawat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5393/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69

…order and it is not open to Ld. CIT(A) to make any addition which is not arising out of the sources/additions as discussed/referred in the assessment order. In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del-HC) 1. 2. CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 87 Taxmann.com 330 (Ker-HC) 3. CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del-HC) 4. CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 5 Taxman 84 (MP-HC) 5. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 64Taxman215(Raj-HC) 6. CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) (decision of Bom-HC (344 ITR 342) 7. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Ch…

N Chandrasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1508/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 N. Chandrasekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 10(1), Hyderabad Pan – Acgpn 6472M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 50C

…decide the issue arising out of proceedings before him. He cannot give direction which is not part of appeal proceedings. In this regard, he relied on the following cases: 6 I.T.A. No. 1508/Hyd/18 N. Chandrasekhar, Hyd. 1. CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & co., [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB). 2. Computer Science Corporation India (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors., [2014] 268 CTR (MP) 110. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) relied on the material available on papers of appeal and CIT(A) has power to give direction and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kanpur Co…