CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal

298 ITR 22High Court2008#1615 most cited

What is CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal authority for?

If additional grounds are raised for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal · additional grounds · Tribunal · CIT-A · remand · assessment procedure · admission of grounds · new grounds · adjudication

Also reported as

153 Taxmann 532

Judgments citing CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 872/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 871/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 870/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 869/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 868/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 867/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 866/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 865/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 864/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 863/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 862/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 861/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 860/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 859/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 858/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 857/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 856/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 855/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 854/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 853/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 dated 10th March, 2006, against the admission of additional ground. 018. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. First, we determine that what are the concluded assessments before the date of search are. The date of search is 3 October 2013. Therefore, assessment proceedings up to A.Y. 2…