How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani (214 ITR 15), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1963, Section 1963), Section 10A, Section 135 (Companies Act, Section 143(3), Section 144B.

CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani

214 ITR 15High Court1995#8036 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can refuse to admit additional evidence if the case can be decided based on the existing material on record. If additional evidence is to be admitted, the Assessing Officer must be given an opportunity to respond.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani · 81 Taxmann 311 · 214 ITR 15 · additional evidence · Tribunal · admit evidence · Assessing Officer opportunity

Also reported as

81 Taxmann 311

Sections most often in play

Section 1963 Section 1963)Section 10A Section 135 (Companies Act Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 153(3)

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidence most appropriate method arm's length price tnmm transfer india company document interest business

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani

Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limted, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 9344/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…for pronouncement of judgment, in their opinion. The DR distinguished the cases relied upon by the assessee and supported his arguments relying on the following decisions: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani in 81 taxmann 311 (Bom.)/214 ITR 15. 2. UoI V Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 13. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. For better understanding of the issue in hand, the content of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 is extracted as below: “29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal:- The partie…

Luminous Teleinfra Ltd. (Now Merged With Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6997/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 80

…12 for the proposition that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. 8. The ld DR also relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Smt Kamal C Mahboobbani (1995) 214 ITR 15 (Bom) for the proposition that where order could be passed on the basis of materials on record, Tribunal can refuse to admit additional evidence. Alternatively, it was stated that if these are to be admitted, then an opportunity needs to be given to the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. AR in his rebuttal countered the ld DR argument of belated fili…

Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6996/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)

…7.2012 for the proposition that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. The ld DR also relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Smt Kamal C Mahboobbani (1995) 214 ITR 15 (Bom) for the proposition that where order could be passed on the basis of materials on record, Tribunal can refuse to admit additional evidence. Alternatively, it was stated that if these are to be admitted, then an opportunity needs to be given to the Assessing Officer. 8. The ld. AR in his rebuttal countered the ld DR argument of belated fil…

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

…al No.1760 of 2022 dated 10th March, 2022 (SC); CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 judgment dated 14.01.2011 referred to and relied upon by the assesse. A reference was also made to CIT vs. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobani, (1995) 214 ITR 15 (Bom); Kanniappan Muriugadoss vs. ITO, (2017) 79 taxmann.com 244 (Chennai Tribunal) in this regard. 14 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 22. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submitted that Rule 29 permits the Tribunal to admit the additional evidences where the test of ‘substantial cause’ is found to exist. In the present case, the TPO as well as AO proceede…

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee be considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3524/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 American Express Services India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Metropolitan, Saket, Circle-1(1), 7Th Floor, Office Block, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aabct0555D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Parth, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…case of Kanniappan Murugadoss vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward- 7(4), Chennai, 79 taxmann.com 244/164 ITD 260 (Chennai Tribunal 2017); judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani, 81 taxmann 311 (Bom)/214 ITR 15 (Bom); judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tax Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., 239 CTR 263; and the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. vs. CIT, 302 ITR 173 (Guj). On the basis of these decisions, the ld. DR submitted in written submissions that: 8 (i). The Tribunal powers to…

Dilip Bhattu Karanjule, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

ITA 838/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 838/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Dilip Bhattu Karanjule 482/B, Audumber, Suraj Nagar, Shirur (Ghodnadi), Pune – 412210 Pan:Acdpk5361M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 24/10/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 23/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 28

…lish with the evidential documents as to what precluded him to adduce such additional evidences before the TAB, we find no support to entertain the same in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Kamal C Mehboobbani” reported at 214 ITR 15. 9. Now coming to merits of the case, the appellant carried the surplus or income of ₹36,14,129/- to capital account claiming as exempt from tax on the pretext that, alleged lands situated beyond 8 kilo- ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 12 Dilip B Karanjule ITA No.838/PUN/2018 AY: 2012-13 meters of the municipal limits, being rural agricultural in character f…

Shri Bharat Singh, Dhrangadhra vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ward- 3, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 153/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 153/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 Shri Bharat Singh, I.T.O., Kalyanpur (Kondh), Vs. Ward-3, Kondh, Surendranagar. Dhrangadra-363310. Pan: Catps9626P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D Gupta, CIT. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ax authority, he shall comply with the direction of the Tribunal and after compliance send the document, the record of the deposition of the witness or the record of the evidence adduced to the Tribunal. In the case of CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mahboobbani [1995] 214 ITR 15/81 Taxman 311 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court held as under:- "We are of the opinion that rule 29 does not confer any right on the parties, as such, to produce any additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. On the other hand, such a right has specifically been taken away by prohibiting the production of the additional evide…

Chandrashekahar Ashok Joshi, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

ITA 690/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 690/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Chandrashekhar Ashok Joshi Krishnakunj, Makhmalabad Naka, Rajdal Colony, Panchwati,Nashik – 422003 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aaxpj0797N बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Defies The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 20/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43B

…f third party supporting have lost its evidential value, and for these composite reasons we do not find any support to entertain the additional evidence in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Kamal C Mehboobbani” reported at 214 ITR 15, thus the ground number 2 is dismissed. 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is partly allowed in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday 09th day of November, 2022. - -S/d- -S/d- S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / P…

Maulikaben Anantkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 2223/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2223/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Maulikaben Anantkumar Shah, The Commissioner Of A-G-1, Sharansh Appartment, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Dev Hospital, Gandhinagar. Vasna, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 68

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Perey Pareliwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 56

…sion of the additional evidence is the discretion of the Tribunal. No doubt the Tribunal is required to exercise its discretion with sound reasoning, guided by various judicial pronouncements. 29. The Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kamal C Mehboobbani (214 ITR 15) (Bom) held as under: “7. --------------, we are of the opinion that rule 29 does not confer any right on the parties as such to produce any additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. On the other hand, such a right has specifically been taken away by prohibiting the production of the additional evidence by the parties. T…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs. Pgs Geophysical As, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1401/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Bablani, CA and Shri Sahil Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT(DR)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…Fit for Publication ITA No.- 1401/Del/2015. (AM) (JM) M/s PGS Geophysical AS. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1401/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s PGS Geophysical AS, Tax Circle 2(2) (2), International Vs. Stradevien 4, P.O. Box 290 Taxation, New Delhi. N-1326 Lysaker, Norway, C/o BMR & Associates, 22nd Floor, Building No. 5, Tower- A DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase –III, Gurgaon-122002. PAN No: AACCP3237B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MAMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4585/Mum/2015(Assessment Year- 2010-11) Nerka Chemical Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income 50-51, B-11, GIDC Estate, Vapi, tax, Central Circle-6(3), District Valsad, Gujarat, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. PIN - 396195 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACN9337Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with : Sh. Jos Sinhgwi Advocate Sh.Kirit Kamdar-CA Revenue by : Sh. Girish Dave Special Counsel/ Advocate with Sh. Suman Kumar Sr. DR also as…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner of A-25, MIDC Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. PAN No. AAIPS1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR Date of Hearing : 16/03/2018…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia

Section 17(2)(iv)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘J’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM ITA No.7652/Mum/2014 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ A-25, MIDC Street No.3 Circle 20(3) Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East) Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai – 400 093. PAN : AAIPS1238A. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Arju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement :…