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 367,154 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

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 723/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1328/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 6416/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

…ssessee’s instant former grievance is accepted therefore. Ordered accordingly. 8. Coming to the learned CIT(A)’s action enhancing the assessee’s capital gains from long term to short term only (supra), we hereby quote CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del) to conclude that he could not add a new head of income or disallowance; as the case may be, while exercising ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta enhancement jurisdiction u/s 251 of the Act. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s acti…

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2186/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

…ssessee’s instant former grievance is accepted therefore. Ordered accordingly. 8. Coming to the learned CIT(A)’s action enhancing the assessee’s capital gains from long term to short term only (supra), we hereby quote CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del) to conclude that he could not add a new head of income or disallowance; as the case may be, while exercising ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta enhancement jurisdiction u/s 251 of the Act. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s acti…

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 5461/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

…ssessee’s instant former grievance is accepted therefore. Ordered accordingly. 8. Coming to the learned CIT(A)’s action enhancing the assessee’s capital gains from long term to short term only (supra), we hereby quote CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del) to conclude that he could not add a new head of income or disallowance; as the case may be, while exercising ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta enhancement jurisdiction u/s 251 of the Act. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s acti…

Paramasivam Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

ITA 281/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon by him have considered and distingui…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’ case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various order…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’ case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various order…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’ case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various order…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 74/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’ case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various order…

Neeraj Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1086/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1086/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neeraj Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 314, Main Chowk, Near Pnb, Ward-39(1), Burari, Delhi-110084 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpb0280P Assessee By : Sh. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2019-20/1024600279(1) Dated 03.02.2020 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tushal Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 149Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 251(1)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1086/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neeraj Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 314, Main Chowk, Near PNB, Ward-39(1), Burari, Delhi-110084 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APDPB0280P Assessee by : Sh. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises…

A & A Capital Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1885/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…ehement submissions regarding validity of the lower appellate findings herein making section 251(1)(a) enhancement of Rs. 90.52 crores and find no reason to sustain the same. We are of the considered view, in light of CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT v. Union of India (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.); and CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB), that although the learned lower appellate authority is indeed vested with enhancement jurisdiction, the same has been held as not extendable to adding a new head of income itself. It is observed, at the cost of repetition, that on…

Krushi Sadhna Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit, Kurundwad Shirol, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

In the result the ground number 1 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1299/PUN/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

…he ‘Explanation’ to section 251. Similarly, we find support from the ITAT Pune’s decision in the case of Vijay Builders Vs. ITO ITA 863/PUN/2013 wherein the ITAT has followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891(SC). 4.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria on 7th April, 1967, [1968 AIR 153] held as under : Quote, “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this Court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3) of th…

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.302/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2017-18 cuke Suwalka and Suwalka Properties Asst. Commissioner of Vs. and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Bundi Road, Kunhari Ladpura, Central Circle, Kota. Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCS 7054 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Sh.…

Ramesh Gupta, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…the above facts. Section 124(3) of the Act is not restricted to mere territorial jurisdictional objections. The Sr. DR placing reliance on the decisions in cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh [1964] 51 ITR 566 (Pat.); Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC); Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal [1959]36 ITR 9 (SC); Sarupchand and Hukumchand [1953] 23 ITR 382 (MP) and Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (Gau), submitted that the jurisdictional issues could not be raised after the 7 completion of assessment as the same was not within th…

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…n Income tax Act, 1922. He submitted that the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee were rendered without considering the Explanation to Section 251 of the Act. The ld. DR relied on the following case laws:- 1) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (SC) 44 ITR 891 :-13-: ITA. Nos: 620 & 635/Chny/2020 2) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (SC) 66 ITR 443 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 6) The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (Chennai ITAT) in ITA no 981/Chny/2020 9.4 We h…

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…n Income tax Act, 1922. He submitted that the decisions relied on by the Id. Counsel for the assessee were rendered without considering the Explanation to Section 251 of the Act. The Id. DR relied on the following case laws:- 1) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (SC) 44 ITR 891 2) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (SC) 66 ITR 443 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 6) The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (Chennai ITAT) in ITA no 981/Chny/2020 9.4 We have heard the rival parties, perused th…

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ions. We do not think it necessary and appropriate to proliferate this judgment by making reference to all the decisions. A few of the important ones need to be noticed. One of the earliest decisions on the point was in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). The matter related to the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act"). It was held, inter alia, that in an appeal filed by the assessed, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax…