How many judgments cite CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal (298 ITR 22), spanning 2015 to 2024.

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.

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

Parth Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (I), Indore

ITA 465/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…oresaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves to be remanded to the file of the Learned CIT(A) in light of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tolaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court : “8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not consider it necessary to examine any other issues, i.e., the questions already framed and decided by the Tribunal though urged by learned counsel for the Revenue on various legal grounds with reference to decided cases of the Supreme Court and the…

Dyputi Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 452/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Jawaharlal Pannalal Nema (HUF), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 324/IND/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153C

…unds have not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). We are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated this ground. Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tolaram Hassomal 298 ITR 22 (MP) we restore both the grounds to the file of the A.O. to decide the case afresh. 10. Now we take up the revenue’s appeal in ITA No.324/Ind/2015. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: [IT(SS)A 81/Ind/2015, CO 66/Ind/2015 & ITA 324/Ind/2015] [M/s. Jawaharlal Pannalal Nema, Indore] On the facts and in the circumstances of the ca…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Ajmera, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…is that the A.O. has not made any specific charge to the penalty being imposed. We have gone through the records. These grounds were not raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tolaram Hassomal 298 ITR 22 (M.P.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not consider it necessary to examine any other issues, i.e., the questions already framed and decided by the Tribunal though urged by learned counsel for the Revenue on various legal grounds with reference to decided cases of the Supreme Court…

Sh. Kamal Kishore Mahajan, Chamba vs. ITO Dalhousie at, Banikhet

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. AroraFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…since the case laws have been brought to the notice for the first time the matter needs to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. She relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tolla Ram Hassomal (153 Taxmann 532) (M.P.). 7. We have gone through the material placed before us and find that the assessee has referred only to the judgments but has not taken any additional grounds. Hence, no remand to CIT(A) is called for in this case. On merits we have gone through the judgments relied by the Ld. AR. In the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. CIT (supr…

Iqroop Singh Sekhon, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Chandigarh

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

ITA 258/CHANDI/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Iqroop Singh SekhonFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 250(6)

…the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT 262 CTR 118(Supreme Court) and Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H), the additional evidences are being admitted. 8. The Ld. DR argued that based on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Tolla Ram Hasso Mal 153 Taxmann 532(M.P) (2006), and also on the rationale in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 928/2001 (Delhi High Court) and submitted that the assessee has been constantly ignoring the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and in case additional evidences, the Revenue should get an opportunity to examine the same. 9. We have heard the arguments…

M/S Krishan Chand Agro Pvt. Ltd., Sunam vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Sangrur

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

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Krishan Chand Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT Jawandha Road, Sunam Range, Sangrur PAN No. AABCK7035K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt. Chandrakanta Date of hearing : 05/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05/03/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala dt. 05/04/2017. 2. The assessee has raised the following…

M/S. Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5986/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Ito, Ward – 27(2), New Delhi M/S. Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd., O-22, 1St Floor, Lajpat Nagar –Ii, New Delhi Pan : Aaacw1551H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.R. Manjani, Adv. & Sh. Basant Pandey, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 15/09/2015 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’) For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds: 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.34,39,699/- Received As Advance From Client On 29.03.2011 For Work Done In April To June, 2011 As Per Bill Dated 30.03.2011, Copy Filed With The Cit(A). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Wrong On Facts As Well As In Law In Stating That No Proof That The Above Receipts Are Shown In Next Year Are Filed In Fact Of Copy Of Bill Issued For Work Done From 01.04.2011 To 30.03.2011 For Which Advance Was Received.

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. ITO, Ward – 27(2), New Delhi M/s. Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd., O-22, 1st Floor, Lajpat Nagar –II, New Delhi PAN : AAACW1551H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K.R. Manjani, Adv. & Sh. Basant Pandey, CA Respondent by Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.05.2017 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2017 ORDER Per O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 15/09/2015 of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, H Ead Office, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 are allowed and Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1079/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.1079 & 1080/Bang/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S. Nagendra Prasad, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…notices is being raised for the first time before the adjudication. In support of this contention, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT V. Tolaram Hassomal (2008) 298 ITR 22 (M.P.). 3.3 In a rejoinder to the contentions raised by the learned Departmental Representative, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sankeshwar Printers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 218 Taxman 360 has laid down the law in this regard. It was also submitted t…

Shri. E. Krishnappa, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…anded to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) for consideration. In support of this contention, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT V Tolaram Hassomal reported in 298 ITR 22. 4.3 In his rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee is purely question of law and no facts are required to be investigated other than the information and details available in the records of the Department. It was further contended that the additional grounds rai…