How many judgments cite CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd.?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. (293 ITR 53), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 131.

CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd.

293 ITR 53High Court2007#5248 most cited

What is CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. authority for?

The appellate authority can permit the production of documents that are necessary for the disposal of an appeal on its merits. If documents are deemed necessary for an appeal's disposal, the appellate authority ought to exercise its power to admit such additional evidence.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. · 293 ITR 53 · additional evidence · admit documents · disposal of appeal · CIT(A) power · appellate authority

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 139 Section 153

Issues it is cited on

rule 46a genuineness of the transaction assistant commissioner section 133(6)salary section 68 section 143(1)section 142(1)section 25 person company document

Judgments citing CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd.

ACIT-16(3), Fourth Floor vs. Muffazal Lakdawala, Rna Mirage S.K Ahire Marg

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3254/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21 Acit – 16 (3), Muffazal Lakdawala, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Mumbai – 400018. Mumbai – 400020. Pan – Aacpl 2097 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia A/W Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. Ars. Revenue By : Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Taken/Received Unsecured Loan To The Tune Of Rs. 3,28,42,847/- In Total From The Lenders, As Detailed Below: - Anjuman E Mohammadi – 1,50,00,000/- Reshma Jai Ram Shetty – 1,75,00,000/- Digestive Health Institute By Dr. Muffi Pvt. Ltd. – 3,42,847/-

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia a/w Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 133Section 250Section 68

…and such other material as may be brought on his record, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment 11. We observe from the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT – II Nagpur Vs. Suretech Hospital and Research Center Limited 293 ITR 53/164 taxmann 168 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the appellate authority can permit production of document, which enable him to dispose of the appeal. In the facts of the case, the finding given by the Tribunal that the documents produced were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits and therefore no question of law aris…

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur

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

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom.), it is also a decision directly supporting the case of the assessee. The present case of the assessee also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 53 where the Hon'ble Court has held that its view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits, it was justified in holding that the CIT(A) ought to have exercised its power to admit additional evidence. Therefore, in the present circumstances…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ted 4/9/1990. 3. Income Tax Officer, TDS vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd [2022] 134 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi – Trib.) 4. DCIT vs. M/s. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd in ITA No. 2881/Del/2011, dated 23/04/2021. 5. CIT vs. Suretech Hospital and Research Centre [2007] 293 ITR 53 (Bom.) 6. ITO vs. M/s. Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer in ITA No. 2117/Mum/2023, dated 29/01/2024. The Ld. AR also referred to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein the Ld. TPO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act. In response to the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the principle of res judicata does not apply…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

…t was also submitted that even otherwise when remand report is called, there is no prejudice to the Department. Learned AR relied on the 8 M/s Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd. judgment of Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bom); Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 26 ITD 79 (Asr); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair 265 ITR 217 (Ker); and Hon’ble Delhi High in CIT Vs. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd. 332 ITR 396 (Delhi). 4.3 We have given thoughtful consideration to the ma…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

ITO (It)2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Ramchandra Chande, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect

ITA 583/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvk-Vk-La- 583@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2011&12½ The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-2 (1) (1) Room No.1724, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Shri Ajay Ramchandra Chande 603, Sagra Kanya, 7 Bunglows, Andheri West Mumbai-400 061 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aofpc9895N

For Appellant: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Bansal

…sment order. It is not a case where the assessee did not file the documents at all during assessment proceedings. The learned AR in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Sureteck Hospital & Research Centre Limited, 293 ITR 53 (Bom). In respect of ground no. 3 of appeal, the learned AR submits that the assessee is a non-resident. The AO has wrongly mentioned the status of assessee in assessment order as resident. The investments are made from funds available in NRE account of the assessee. This fact has been examined by the AO in remand proceedings and the AO has not di…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…n the issue of admission of additional evidences before the first appellate authority is well settled. In the cases of Mr.Shahrukh Khan 20 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal Vs DCIT (2007) 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai), CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT Vs Parimal, Kandi Chanda (2007) 291 1TR 77 (Gau), CIT Vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P) Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gau), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Born), Surmukh Singh Vs ITO (2008) 115 TTJ (Asr) 852, ITO Vs Dwarka Prasad (1998) 60 TTJ (Pat) 292 and various other cases it was held that in exercise of powers under sectio…

Sanjay Matai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 375/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 375/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/S Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Alkpm 9533 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 25/01/2016 For The A.Y. 2008-09 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whereas On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Ajmer Has Grossly Erred In Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46-A Submitted During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings Stating There In That Though Complete Details & Evidence Were Filed Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Which Were Not Considered Prospectively. It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested Before Your Honour That Application Under Rule 46A Of The I.T.Act,1961 Of The Appellant Deserves To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 375/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/s Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALKPM 9533 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Ch…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…n Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substantive issues are to be decided. The same are discussed i…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

Vritti Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 1853/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Vritti Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit Circle – 11(3)(2), 60, Ground Floor, Ram Mahal Aayakar Bhavan, Society, Opp. Mahim Rly. Station, Mumbai Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahim (W), Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabcv3176C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal/Tanmay Phadake (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Tanmay Phadake (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40

…rity can always entertain evidence which is necessary to decide the issue in appeal – especially evidence which has a direct bearing on the dispute:- (i) CIT vs. Smt. Prabhavati Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd [2007] 293 ITR 53 (Bom) Thus, the same has been admitted and considered. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed, as stated above.” 8. Considering the above, we find that the assessee discharged his onus validly, therefore, the conclusions given by the CIT (A) does not call for any interference.” 9. Similarly, on the issue of applicability of provisions of section…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

…tunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 19 evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substantive issues a…

DCIT, Circle-2 (1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R

Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ ‘D’- अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No.112/Ahd/2017 WITH CO No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14 DCIT Vs. M/s. Jagson Colorchem Cir. 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ltd. 1st Floor Navjivan Trust 5601/1,PhaseII, Building, GIDC,Vatva, Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad-382445 PAN- AAACJ7664C Appellant/ Respondent Respondent / Cross Objector Assessee by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R Revenue by : Shri Karan Shah, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of H…

Riteplaza Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5558/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…td 33 SOT 317 (OM) 6. Airline Allied Services Ltd 2017) 167 ITD 717 (Del-Trib) 7. Bombay Gas Co Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 13 (Mum) 8. Samrat Rice Mills (P) Ltd 54 SOT 1 (Del) 9. Tosha International Ltd 331 ITR 440 (Del) 10.Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd 293 ITR 53 (Bom) 11.Prabhavati S Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supporting the order of CIT(A) submitted that the assessee derived benefit out of remission or cessation of liability towards loan received from M/s Om Metal Infraprojects Ltd which is evident from the fact that the creditor has accepted before the AO tht it has unilate…

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Nirman Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…furnished as also the AO's comments made with reference thereto in his Remand Report. This view is Anand Nirman Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd (293 ITR 53) and that of the .M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai (232 ITR 900).” After going through the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had forwarded the additional evidence before the AO and sought his remand report and the AO had conducted enquiries before forwarding the remand report. Therefore…

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Nirman Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anantharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 142Section 69

…DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL. VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 435 & 404/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The ACIT Vs. M/s Pyramid Realtors Pvt Ltd Circle – X B – 67, Sarita Vihar Phase – II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN AASXP 4395 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Anantharaman, CA Department by : Shri Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 24.05.2016 Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4961/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/S. Niit Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacn0085D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

…unity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITo. 63 ITO 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice" and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted: Other similar rulings are 68TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1 ,21 SOT 218, 293 ITR 53, 94 ITD 79 etc. Since the AO has not given any adverse comments about the veracity of the documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence, it is held that they are acceptable as evidence. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited .judicial pronouncements, I hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admi…