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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/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…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[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. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Bharath Promoters, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 3129/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

For Appellant: S Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

…ncome arising in the hands of the Appellant from sale of the asset constituted a new source of income and therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was liable to be struck down in view the following judgments/decisions - CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry: 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sundari Lal & Co.: 251 ITR 864 (Del HC), and Dr. L. Siarvanan Vs. I.T.A. No. 3129/Chny/2017 & 115/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 and 2015-16 ITO: ITA No. 1617/2018 (Tribunal – Chennai). He further submitted that even the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by including in the Remand Report observations on the iss…

Bharath Promotors, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-3, Chennai

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 115/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

For Appellant: S Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

…ncome arising in the hands of the Appellant from sale of the asset constituted a new source of income and therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was liable to be struck down in view the following judgments/decisions - CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry: 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sundari Lal & Co.: 251 ITR 864 (Del HC), and Dr. L. Siarvanan Vs. I.T.A. No. 3129/Chny/2017 & 115/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 and 2015-16 ITO: ITA No. 1617/2018 (Tribunal – Chennai). He further submitted that even the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by including in the Remand Report observations on the iss…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment 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 : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…assed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals)] by the appellant.” 17. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an appeal filed by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering new sources of income not mentioned in the return of the assessee or considered by the Income-tax Officer in the order appealed against. Learned Counsel for the assessee furth…

Balaji Construction, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…n alone. 4. The legal position regarding section 68 addition of the very sum also fails the test of legality as it amount to hold together a new head of income in first appellate proceedings not sustainable in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The same also stands deleted therefore. 3 No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. Delay of 850 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned since majority of this prescribed limitation falls…

Vijay Baban Gunjal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(4) Pune, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 372/PUN/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. Sasar
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…This is for the reason that once the CIT(A) has disagreed with section 68 addition, the very addition be made under a different head runs contrary to the settled contours of his lower appellate jurisdiction as held in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyers (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sadari Lal & Company (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi). I therefore delete the impugned section 69A addition for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 4. Delay of 101 days in filing of the instant appeal attributable to various communication ga…

Kishor Gorakhnaht Bhagwat, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1295/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1295/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kishor Gorakhnath Vs. Ito, Ward-7(4), Pune. Bhagwat, A-103, Suyog Shivalaya, Sinhagad Road, Dattawadi, Pune-411030. Pan : Afapb9960M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 09.07.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Ito. Wd. 7(4)/407/18-19/121 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 54

…A)’s order by way of enhancement. There could be hardly in dispute that such an addition in the nature of altogether a new head of income in first appellate proceedings goes contrary to the settled legal proposition in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The impugned latter addition stands deleted for this precise reason alone. The Revenue’s vehement argument supporting the same are rejected therefore. 3 No other argument or ground has been pressed during the course of hearing.…

Melongos India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…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…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 730 & 731/HYD/2016 & C.O. Nos.8 & 9/HYD/2021 (in ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016) Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s.Ratna Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, HYDERABAD Central Circle-3, [PAN: AADCR5836P] HYDERABAD / Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 730/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 730 & 731/HYD/2016 & C.O. Nos.8 & 9/HYD/2021 (in ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016) Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s.Ratna Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, HYDERABAD Central Circle-3, [PAN: AADCR5836P] HYDERABAD / Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT…

Sri Talapaka Annamacharya Education Society, Kadapa vs. Income Tax Officers, (Exemptions), Tirupati

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 24/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sri Talapaka Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Annamacharya Education (Exemptions), Society, Tirupati. Kadapa. Pan : Aadts6112L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Majumdar For Cit Dr Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2022

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Majumdar for CIT DR YVST Sai
Section 11Section 143(3)

…nd therefore that the CIT(A)’s latter findings regarding allocation of the assessee’s corpus funds; if any, alleged to have been utilized for the purpose of acquiring capital assets, goes contrary to the settled law in CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) that the learned appellate authority could not create a new source of income or disallowance, as the case may be. I accordingly hold that the CIT(A)’s directions to the Assessing Officer regarding the impugned quantification do not deserve to be concurred with and the same stand reversed. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.…

Naresh Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8108/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)

…on 2 Naresh Sharma Vs. ITO order sheet entry dated 18.06.2019. 3. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot go beyond the matters that arose out of the proceedings before the AO in gross contravention of judgment of Apex Court inCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC) and against the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sardari Lai & Co. [2002] 120 Taxman 595. 4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating a sum of Rs 584,093/- (out of total payment of Rs 975,000/- made to broker M/s Bezel Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd) as unexplained and out of unexplained sources and adding the same to the returned…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…e Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 was restricted to the subject matter of the assessment or the sources of income which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view o…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…e Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 was restricted to the subject matter of the assessment or the sources of income which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view o…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 815/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion pertaining to this taxpayer’s alleged exempt income. The question as to whether the CIT(A) enhances assessee’s income by way of making altogether a new disallowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. W…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 810/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion pertaining to this taxpayer’s alleged exempt income. The question as to whether the CIT(A) enhances assessee’s income by way of making altogether a new disallowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. W…