CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891Supreme Court of India1962#284 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 366,470 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Kanakapura vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2667/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ch are subject matter which arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Kanakpura vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2666/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ch are subject matter which arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee…

Lalit Kumar Dosi, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2660/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ch are subject matter which arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee…

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2658/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ch are subject matter which arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. The DCIT, Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) F-6, vs. Circle-26(2), Vikas House, 34/1, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. PIN 110026.PAN AAACV0608G (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Gautam Jain, And For Assessee : Shri Piyush Kamal, Advocates For Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appea…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Shashi Kiran Shetty Vs Acit, Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aavashya House Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 Pan : Ameps5601B Appellant Respondednt

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 274

…9. The assessee also has taken a legal plea challenging the enhancement made by the Ld.CIT(A) in the light of certain judicial precedents. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) argued that the CIT(A) does not have any power to travel outside the issue before him. The Ld.CIT(A) have wide enough powers to examine the issue which was subject matter of deliberations by the AO, but he cannot introduce a new source of income to make enhancement of assessment because the powers of the appellate authority is limited to t…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…ubject matter of assessment appealed against; that the CIT.(A)/ AAC, in his appellate powers, cannot make addition in respect of a source of income neither disclosed by the assessee in his return nor considered by the ITO:  CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji, (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) (pages 644-648 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the AAC cannot enhance assessment on sources not disclosed in return or not considered by ITO in assessment. Held as under: “In view of the provisions of ss. 34 & 33B by which escaped income can be brought to tax, there is reason to think that the view expressed uniformly about the…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…ubject matter of assessment appealed against; that the CIT.(A)/ AAC, in his appellate powers, cannot make addition in respect of a source of income neither disclosed by the assessee in his return nor considered by the ITO:  CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji, (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) (pages 644-648 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the AAC cannot enhance assessment on sources not disclosed in return or not considered by ITO in assessment. Held as under: “In view of the provisions of ss. 34 & 33B by which escaped income can be brought to tax, there is reason to think that the view expressed uniformly about the…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…annual the assessment.” 45. Regarding the powers of the ld CIT(A) by way of enhancement of income in hands of the assessee, the matter had come up for the consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein the question framed for consideration was “whether in an appeal filed by an assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can find a new source of income not considered by the Income-tax Officer and assess it under his powers granted by section 31 of the Income-tax Act ? 46. The legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court re…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…annual the assessment.” 45. Regarding the powers of the ld CIT(A) by way of enhancement of income in hands of the assessee, the matter had come up for the consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein the question framed for consideration was “whether in an appeal filed by an assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can find a new source of income not considered by the Income-tax Officer and assess it under his powers granted by section 31 of the Income-tax Act ? 46. The legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court re…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…annual the assessment.” 45. Regarding the powers of the ld CIT(A) by way of enhancement of income in hands of the assessee, the matter had come up for the consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein the question framed for consideration was “whether in an appeal filed by an assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can find a new source of income not considered by the Income-tax Officer and assess it under his powers granted by section 31 of the Income-tax Act ? 46. The legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court re…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…annual the assessment.” 45. Regarding the powers of the ld CIT(A) by way of enhancement of income in hands of the assessee, the matter had come up for the consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein the question framed for consideration was “whether in an appeal filed by an assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can find a new source of income not considered by the Income-tax Officer and assess it under his powers granted by section 31 of the Income-tax Act ? 46. The legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court re…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…z 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed…