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, 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

…e fulfilled. It is inconceivable that in the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is available to the first appellate authority. Accordingly the matter was disposed of.” 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 held as under: “The question which arises in this appeal may be formulated thus: 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? Section 31 reads as follows: “31.(1)…

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

…e fulfilled. It is inconceivable that in the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is available to the first appellate authority. Accordingly the matter was disposed of.” 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 held as under: “The question which arises in this appeal may be formulated thus: 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? Section 31 reads as follows: “31.(1)…

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

…thority has no power u/s 251 of the Act to at income not considered by the AO.The Hon’ble court has relied on the following judgments on this issue: o CIT vs. Rai Bahadur HardutoryMotilalChamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) o CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Misty [1962]44 ITR 891 (SC) In view of the above stated case laws on the limitation of the powers of enhancement of CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act, the action of the DRP to adjudicate the issue of disallowance of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- is outside the scope of the power of the DRP as provided u/s 144C(8) of the Act and its explanation because the issue of disallowance u/s 69C was…

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

…t considered the issue which has been the basis of enhancement done by the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur [supra] had the occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 wherein the following question was adjudicated: "The only question is whether in enhancing the assessment for any year lie can travel outside the record, that is to say, the return made by the assessee and the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer with a view to finding out new sources of income, not disclosed in either. It is conte…

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)

…t considered the issue which has been the basis of enhancement done by the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur [supra] had the occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 wherein the following question was adjudicated: "The only question is whether in enhancing the assessment for any year lie can travel outside the record, that is to say, the return made by the assessee and the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer with a view to finding out new sources of income, not disclosed in either. It is conte…

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)

…t considered the issue which has been the basis of enhancement done by the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur [supra] had the occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 wherein the following question was adjudicated: "The only question is whether in enhancing the assessment for any year lie can travel outside the record, that is to say, the return made by the assessee and the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer with a view to finding out new sources of income, not disclosed in either. It is conte…

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing in the proceedings for assessment though it may not be raised in the appeal. Even if there is no such a provision in the statute, the decision in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 342 (Bom.) affirmed in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC) that an appellate authority can deal with any matter covered by the order appealed against, irrespective of the fact whether that matter is raised in appeal or not. If it does not deal or revise any of the points within its jurisdiction, it should be assumed that the appellate authority has affirmed the findings on those points and has not th…

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

…earned assessing officer and therefore the learned CIT – A could not have made enhancement of the above sum. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Shapporji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891. It was further stated that the right course of action that could have been taken by the learned CIT – A was to direct the learned assessing officer to issue notice under section 147 of the act or invoking the revisionary powers under section 263 of the income tax act. 066. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the ld CIT…

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

…earned assessing officer and therefore the learned CIT – A could not have made enhancement of the above sum. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Shapporji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891. It was further stated that the right course of action that could have been taken by the learned CIT – A was to direct the learned assessing officer to issue notice under section 147 of the act or invoking the revisionary powers under section 263 of the income tax act. 066. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the ld CIT…

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)

…rks, without making such additions. The 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),  Sa…

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)

…complete non application of mind by the AO on the aspect of allow ability of the claim of interest u/s 36(1)(iii). 10. Supporting case laws: 10.1CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 10.2CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) 10.3 CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers (1992) 197 ITR 350 (Raj)/(1992) 64 Taxmann 215 ( RAJ HC)(DPB 47-48) It was held under: Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. “6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have looked into the provisions of law. 7. X X X X X X A perusal of ss. 246 to 251 makes it clear t…

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)

…complete non application of mind by the AO on the aspect of allow ability of the claim of interest u/s 36(1)(iii). 10. Supporting case laws: 10.1CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 10.2CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) 10.3 CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers (1992) 197 ITR 350 (Raj)/(1992) 64 Taxmann 215 ( RAJ HC)(DPB 47-48) It was held under: Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. “6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have looked into the provisions of law. 7. X X X X X X A perusal of ss. 246 to 251 makes it clear t…

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

…presenting advances received against the sale of property which stood deleted by the tribunal in earlier years. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion the same deserve to be deleted on the legal aspect itself in light of CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001)251ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) and CIT Vs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) settling the law the CIT(A)’s enactment jurisdiction does not include to adding a new source/head of income in first appellate proceedings. We adopt the same reasoning to delete the impugned enhancement addition of Rs.44,69,650/- in issue f…

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

…presenting advances received against the sale of property which stood deleted by the tribunal in earlier years. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion the same deserve to be deleted on the legal aspect itself in light of CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001)251ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) and CIT Vs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) settling the law the CIT(A)’s enactment jurisdiction does not include to adding a new source/head of income in first appellate proceedings. We adopt the same reasoning to delete the impugned enhancement addition of Rs.44,69,650/- in issue f…

M/S. Angelica Properties Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner Income-Tax

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…on the decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [87 ITR (Trib) 505 ] [Page 725-747 of PB No. 4]. 7.3. In the similar manner, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662…

Vascon Engineers Ltd (Successor to Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…on the decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [87 ITR (Trib) 505 ] [Page 725-747 of PB No. 4]. 7.3. In the similar manner, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment 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 : None Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 : None Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 21.3.2019 of the CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru,…

M/S. Spaarkon Trading Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-18, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 426/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(v)

…,87,52,372/-, being disallowance of interest on loan, despite the subject matter not forming part of the original assessment. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Shapoorji Paloonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) and various other High Courts, wherein it was settled that the CIT(A) cannot enhance assessment for Income from a new source not considered in the original assessment. 7. For the aforesaid grounds and for other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing, the order of CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and justice be rendered. As evident, the ass…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e assessee with respect to the item of addition which was not disturbed by the AO in the assessment order. The learned AR in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891. 7.2 On the other hand, the learned DR before us filed a paper book and contended that it was the duty upon the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence that the debtors have made the payment directly to the supplier namely KIFL. Thus the AO rightly treated the amount of difference as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 7.3 T…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e assessee with respect to the item of addition which was not disturbed by the AO in the assessment order. The learned AR in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891. 7.2 On the other hand, the learned DR before us filed a paper book and contended that it was the duty upon the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence that the debtors have made the payment directly to the supplier namely KIFL. Thus the AO rightly treated the amount of difference as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 7.3 T…