CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.

351 ITR 57High Court2013#1283 most cited

What is CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence, even if filed by a party, when it deems it necessary for proper adjudication and to achieve substantial justice. This power can be exercised in the interest of justice.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. · 351 ITR 57 · admission of additional evidence · ITAT Rule 29 · discretion of Tribunal · interest of justice · substantial justice · proper adjudication · appellate authority power to admit evidence · additional evidence CIT(A)

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementsection 158bb(1)section 131(1a)section 158bbadmission of additional evidencesection 153c(1)section 34section 292bblock periodloose paperssection 132(1)section 153b

Judgments citing CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3114/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to admit additional evidence which is being sought to be admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in 351 ITR 57(Del) had held that Rule 29 15 3111 to 3114/Del/2013 AY:2001-02 03-04,04-05,05-06,06-07 permitting the Tribunal to admit additional evidence is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary for substantial justice in the matter and further held that it was well settled that procedure should not be choked onl…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3113/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to admit additional evidence which is being sought to be admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in 351 ITR 57(Del) had held that Rule 29 15 3111 to 3114/Del/2013 AY:2001-02 03-04,04-05,05-06,06-07 permitting the Tribunal to admit additional evidence is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary for substantial justice in the matter and further held that it was well settled that procedure should not be choked onl…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3112/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to admit additional evidence which is being sought to be admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in 351 ITR 57(Del) had held that Rule 29 15 3111 to 3114/Del/2013 AY:2001-02 03-04,04-05,05-06,06-07 permitting the Tribunal to admit additional evidence is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary for substantial justice in the matter and further held that it was well settled that procedure should not be choked onl…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3111/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to admit additional evidence which is being sought to be admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in 351 ITR 57(Del) had held that Rule 29 15 3111 to 3114/Del/2013 AY:2001-02 03-04,04-05,05-06,06-07 permitting the Tribunal to admit additional evidence is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary for substantial justice in the matter and further held that it was well settled that procedure should not be choked onl…

M/S Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 5847/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to admit additional evidence which is being sought to be admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in 351 ITR 57(Del) had held that Rule 29 15 3111 to 3114/Del/2013 AY:2001-02 03-04,04-05,05-06,06-07 permitting the Tribunal to admit additional evidence is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary for substantial justice in the matter and further held that it was well settled that procedure should not be choked onl…

Maruti Developers, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03

ITA 1018/AHD/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 Maruti Developers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 142, Keshav Park Society, Ward-9(3), Surat. Ved Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Aalfm 5747 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.P.Nanavatya – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 16.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Both Dated 14.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 Respectively Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ultimately turn out to the benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] Maruti Developers Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat. /ITA No’s.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/SRT/AY: 2001-02 & 02-03 Page 11 of 13 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241(Del) wherein it was observed as follows: “13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the m…

Maruti Developers, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03

ITA 1017/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 Maruti Developers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 142, Keshav Park Society, Ward-9(3), Surat. Ved Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Aalfm 5747 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.P.Nanavatya – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 16.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Both Dated 14.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 Respectively Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ultimately turn out to the benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] Maruti Developers Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat. /ITA No’s.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/SRT/AY: 2001-02 & 02-03 Page 11 of 13 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241(Del) wherein it was observed as follows: “13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the m…

Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6686/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Acit, Central Circle- Ltd. 215 Atrium, 10Th Floor, 4(1), Air India Vs. Near Marriot Courtyard Building, 19Th Floor, Hotel, Andheri-Kurla Road, Nariman Point, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400093. Pan No. Aaack2629J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…ding whether the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds in the respective years in which the advances were given. In respect of the principles of admitting additional evidence, the Ld. counsel refers to the decision in CIT v. Text Hundred Industries Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del) and Jeypore Timber & Veneer Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 137 ITR 415 (Gau). The Ld. DR submits that the application for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee should be dismissed by the Tribunal because the details in the form of balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.2005, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2009 and 31.…

Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Silvassa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Vapi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 194CSection 254Section 40

…cessary for proper appreciation of the issue under appeal and would cause of substantial justice. Such evidence may ultimately turn out to the benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241(Del) wherein it was observed as follows: “13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the m…

Ms. Nandita Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 813/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 813/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ms. Nandita Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-7, 1St Floor, Maharani Bagh, Ward-22(2), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpv6907V Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-10, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Impugned Assessment Order Has Been Passed By The Ao Without Providing Reasonable & Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant To Prove Her Case. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Erred On Facts & Under The Law In Making/Confirming Addition Of Rs.14,20,500/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. At Any Case, Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Of Appellants’ Case. Without Prejudice, The Addition As Made Is Very Excessive. Various Observations Made By The Authorities Below In Their Respective Orders Are Either Incorrect Or Are Untenable.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 68

…root of the matter and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, they may kindly be entertained and taken into consideration while deciding the appeal.” 4 Nandita Verma 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Text Hundred India P. Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del.) " Deva Singh Guru Bux Singh Vs CIT 217 ITR 510 (All.) 7. In support of the above, the assessee also furnished an affidavit of the assessee stating therein as under: “I Nandita Verma, D/o Late Shri Ravi Kant aged about 49 years, R/o W-24, Regency Park-2, Phase IV, DLF Gurgaon, Haryana do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1.…

Shri Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4) Now Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 700/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…cessary for proper appreciation of the issue under appeal and would cause of substantial justice. Such evidence may ultimately turn out to the benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241 (Del) wherein it was observed as follows: "13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the…

Rajeevkumar Hariprasad Tulsiyan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3093/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…cessary for proper appreciation of the issue under appeal and would cause of substantial justice. Such evidence may ultimately turn out to the benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241 (Del) wherein it was observed as follows: "13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…64 (Del.) " All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT, CC-44, Mumbai 137 ITD 287 (Mumbai S.B.) " CIT Vs Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 0396 (Del.) " Collector of Central Excise Vs ITC Ltd. 2 SCC 38 (SC) " CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del.) " Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 ITR 245 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.) " Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 0268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Mamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del.) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…64 (Del.) " All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT, CC-44, Mumbai 137 ITD 287 (Mumbai S.B.) " CIT Vs Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 0396 (Del.) " Collector of Central Excise Vs ITC Ltd. 2 SCC 38 (SC) " CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del.) " Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 ITR 245 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.) " Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 0268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Mamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del.) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. PAN: AAACV 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Neeraj Jain, CA. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 15/09/2017 Date of pronouncement : 11/12/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee company directed against the final assessment order dated…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…unal in passing orders or are required to be admitted for any ‘other substantial cause’, it would rather be duty of Tribunal to admit them. Such proposition has been laid down further by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., in 351 ITR 57 wherein held that the Court has held that Rule 29 categorically permits the Tribunal to allow such additional evidences for proper adjudication of the matter and in the interest of substantial cause. 17.2 The ld.D.R was of the view that the assessee has not given any justification for admission of these additional evidences at this stage. The…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…unal in passing orders or are required to be admitted for any ‘other substantial cause’, it would rather be duty of Tribunal to admit them. Such proposition has been laid down further by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., in 351 ITR 57 wherein held that the Court has held that Rule 29 categorically permits the Tribunal to allow such additional evidences for proper adjudication of the matter and in the interest of substantial cause. 17.2 The ld.D.R was of the view that the assessee has not given any justification for admission of these additional evidences at this stage. The…

M/S. Taegu Tec India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1337/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…t was contended that the additional evidence may be admitted as the same was necessary for deciding the issue involved in the appeal and reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India 351 ITR 57 and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486(M.P.). Thus he prayed that the adjustment made by the TPO should be deleted. On other hand the learned DR placed reliance on the order of the lower authorities. Page 7 of 11 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on reco…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rose Advertising P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2827/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…that the additional evidences filed by the company under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules should be admitted in the interest of justice. While doing so we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred Industries Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein it is held as under. "13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is fil…

Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2293/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…that the additional evidences filed by the company under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules should be admitted in the interest of justice. While doing so we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred Industries Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein it is held as under. "13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is fil…