How many judgments cite CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.?

88 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (351 ITR 57), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153C, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 147, Section 132(4).

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement section 158bb(1)section 131(1a)section 158bb admission of additional evidence section 153c(1)section 34 section 292b block period loose papers section 132(1)section 153b

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

Sh. Pradeep Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3710/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10

For Appellant: SH. RAJEEV SAXENA, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. KK Jaiswal, Sr. DR

…the instant appeal, hence, in the interest of justice, I admit the same, in view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court Decisions in the case of CIT vs. Manish Buildwell 245 CTR 397 and in the case of CIT vs. Text Page 3 of 4 Hundred India (P) Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 (Delhi) and the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13-06-2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICI…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6387/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 10ASection 80

….O. has to consider the claim in all its aspects afresh, without being constrained by the order of the ITAT for the A.Y. 2002-03. 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…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6386/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 10ASection 80

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…further submitted that these documents were filed only in support of the averment of the assessee before the lower authorities. The ld AR drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the CIT v Text Hundred India (P.) Ltd 351 ITR 57, wherein their Lordship has held that Rule 29 is made to enable the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do so substantial justice in the matter. 14. On the other hand, the counsel of the Revenue Sh. Manchanda opposed admission of the additional evidences stating that English version of most of the correspondences/…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1978/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 1978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Samsung Heavy Industries Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Co. Ltd., C/O Price Water House (International Taxation), Coopers Pvt. Ltd., 17Th Floor, Dehradun Building 10, Tower C, Dlf, Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7859K Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv., Ms. Pooja Khanna & Sanjam Goel, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv., Ms. PoojaFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…given by the AO to counter his allegations. The reliance is placed on the following case laws: " ACIT Vs Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389 (Del) " K. Venkataramiah Vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors. (1963) AIR 1526 (SC) " CIT Vs Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del) " CIT Vs Kum Satya Setia 15 Taxman 345 (MP) 10 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and further submitted that ample opportunities were given to the assessee by the DRP as well as the AO. Therefore, the additional evidences which were not furnished earlier may not be admitt…

M/S. Btm Exports Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 1541/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri At Varkeyay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SK Jain, D.R

Section 68

…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 5 BTM Exports Ltd., New Delhi A.Y. 2009-10 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…

Shri Deeraj Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5510/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Dheeraj Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O-M/S.O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-11(1), Faridabad, C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. (Pan: Bgzps5285B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement:16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Faridabad, Dated 19.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Impugned Orders Of The Authorities Below Deserve To Be Cancelled As The Authorities Below Had Not Given Proper & Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant Of Being Heard & To Lead The Evidence In Support Of Cash Deposited In The Saving Bank A/C. 2. That At Any Rate, The Additions Aggregating At Rs. 6,24,000/- As Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Ot The Income Of The Appellant & Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Unjust, Illegal Inasmuch As The Appellant Had Field Proper Explanation Explaining The Source Thereof Support By Documentary Evidence.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

…efore the first appellate proceeding and that too after lot of efforts and persuasion and therefore the assessee could not produce said evidence before the lower authorities. In similar situations in the case of CIT v/s Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. Reported in 351 ITR 57, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that once it is found that party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence…