CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891Supreme Court of India1962#282 most cited

What is CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

278

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry · 44 ITR 891 · CIT(A) powers · enhancement of assessment · new source of income · change of head of income · Section 251 · appellate proceedings · limitation on CIT(A) powers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 148Section 263Section 69ASection 132Section 251(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)peak credit theorylegal expensessection 31ddtsection 251(1)(a)section 251(1)section 131(1a)section 251

Judgments citing CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE GREATHILLS, MUMBAI

ITA 3904/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…ourts therein. The first case quoted by ld. AR was in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom.) decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which was further challenged by the revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein the issue of powers of FAA to make enhancement of income was discussed and the appeal of revenue dismissed, by enshrining the following principle of law. “Section 251 of the Income- Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it…

SKYLINE GREATHILLS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3466/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…ourts therein. The first case quoted by ld. AR was in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom.) decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which was further challenged by the revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein the issue of powers of FAA to make enhancement of income was discussed and the appeal of revenue dismissed, by enshrining the following principle of law. “Section 251 of the Income- Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…f the Act, as enhancement should be confined to the issues raised and facts already available in the original assessment and the appeal. In this regard, the Id.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce into assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which wa…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…the Act, as enhancement should be confined to the issues raised and facts already available in the original assessment and the appeal. In this regard, the ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce into assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which wa…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…the Act, as enhancement should be confined to the issues raised and facts already available in the original assessment and the appeal. In this regard, the ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce into assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which wa…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…f the Act, as enhancement should be confined to the issues raised and facts already available in the original assessment and the appeal. In this regard, the Id.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce into assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which wa…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…f the Act, as enhancement should be confined to the issues raised and facts already available in the original assessment and the appeal. In this regard, the Id.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce into assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which wa…

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

…he addition, the Ld CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to wonder on any fresh issue which was not the subject matter before Ld AO. He quote the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry Vs CIT 34 ITR 342 (confirmed by Apex Court in 44 ITR 891) and also the decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sardari Lal I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd & Co 251 ITR 864 to state that the action of Ld CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs. 14,38,359/- as under U/s 40(a)(ia) is without jurisdiction and uncalled for and fit to be deleted in totality since no…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…k of issues arising out of the assessment before the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new sources of income that were never the subject of consideration before the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)] and subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has plenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised judiciously and only within the confines of the material before it. The Revenue‘s present plea, seeking enhanceme…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…k of issues arising out of the assessment before the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new sources of income that were never the subject of consideration before the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)] and subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has plenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised judiciously and only within the confines of the material before it. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enhanceme…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)

…issues arising out of the assessment\nbefore the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new\nsources of income that were never the subject of consideration\nbefore the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [(1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC)]\nand subsequently in Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT [(1997) 224\nITR 610 (SC)] has held that while the appellate authority has\nplenary powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an\nassessment, such power of enhancement must be exercised\njudiciously and only within the confines of the material before\nit. The Revenue's present plea, seeking enh…

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…e quashed. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid contention has taken us through the observations of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had observed that the CIT(A) was divested of his jurisdiction to introduce a new source of addition while exercising the power of enhancement vested with him under Section 251(1) of the Act. Apart from that, the Ld. AR had relied upon the orders of the coordinate benches…

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

ITA 7/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

…Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCircle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.)\nc) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court)\nd) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC)\ne) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC)\n17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the\npowers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of\nincome. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon\nby him have considered and distin…

Showing 1–20 of 278 · Page 1 of 14

...