CIT v. Union Tyres

240 ITR 556High Court1999#759 most cited

What is CIT v. Union Tyres authority for?

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

135

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Union Tyres · Section 251(1)(a) · CIT(A) enhancement · new scope of income · appellate authority jurisdiction · assessment enhancement · first appellate authority powers · Section 251

Also reported as

107 Taxmann 447103 Taxmann.com 196

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 147Section 251(1)(a)Section 148Section 132Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)section 31(3)legal expensessection 251(1)ddtpreponderance of probabilityprincipal officersection 251(1)(a)shell companyroyalty income

Judgments citing CIT v. Union Tyres

Mahavira Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO(Exemption), Noida

In the result, the assessee's instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4466/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ricting the assessee's exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee's favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee's above extracted substantive grounds nos.1 to 5 in very terms to r…

Mahavira Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO(Exemption), Noida

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4465/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ting the assessee’s exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 6 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee’s above extracted substantive grounds nos. 1 to 5 in very terms to…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydreabad

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A" BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.382/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad PAN ADYPM2116L (Appellant) The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), VS. Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) ITA.No.472/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), VS. Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad PAN ADYPM2116L (Respondent) For Assessee : CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date…

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…d by the ITO, as the Appellate Commissioner is vested with all the plenary powers which the Income Tax Officer may have while making the assessment. 47. Indeed, examining Daluram's holding, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556/107 Taxman 447, has observed that Daluram did not comment whether these wide powers also include the power to discover a new source of income. So, Union Tyres concludes that the principle of law laid down in Shapoorji and Chamaria still holds the field. 48. The principle emerging from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, Union Tyres obser…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 727/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee's cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue's and the assessee's foregoing vehement s…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 726/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 722/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 721/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

ITA 717/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

ITA 716/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs. Vinay Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 712/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

Niraj Rathi & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)

…hands which stands converted to that under section 56(2)(vii); and, therefore, it is hereby concluded in the light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that such a course of action is not available to the CIT(A) in exercises of his lower appellate jurisdiction under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. - 4. That being the clinching factual position, the tribunal hereby finds no merit in the impugned addition. The same is directed to be deleted. - 5. This assessee's appeal is allowed. ## Order…

Emaar India Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-74(2), New Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 164/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Emaar India Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Tds, Ward-74(2), Square One, C-2, New Delhi District Centre Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aabce4308B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Ms. Aditi Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 Order

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 251(1)

…ng TDS under Section 194I of the Act. We accordingly find no merit in the learned CIT(A)’s impugned action in light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that no such jurisdiction is vested in him of changing a head of income u/s 251(1) of the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal 2 | P a g e ground to delete the impugned section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) TDS recovery addition in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s…

Excel Infotech Limites, Delhi vs. ACIT, Cenral Circle-30, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1065/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1065/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Excel Infotech Ltd., Vs Acit, Sachin Saxena & Co., Central Circle-30, Office No. 101 & 102, 1St Floor, A-1, New Delhi-110055 Madhuban Tower, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2098K Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. & Sh. Harshit Chauhan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S In Case No. 161/16- 17/2595 Dated 04.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 3

…ment by the CIT(A) amounts to changing the head of the addition itself, already held as not sustainable in law going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). We thus quash the impugned re-opening as 6 Excel Infotech Ltd. well as delete this third addition in very terms i.e. on legality as well as on merits. 8. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us at this stage. 9. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/04/2025. (M. Balaganesh) (Satbeer Si…

Satish, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5619/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5619/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dfups0022C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5619/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DFUPS0022C Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069617638(1) dated 11.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.…

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…being the case the correct recourse would have been section 147/148 or section 263 but the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by making enhancement under section 251 of the Income Tax Act 13.13 The Division Bench of Delhi High court in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) reiterated that the first appellate authority cannot consider new scope of income under section 251(1) of the Act. "Section 251 of the Act prescribes the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, now the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 251(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of an appeal by the…

Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 717/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75…

Chetna Sundaram, Janak Puri Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…being the case the correct recourse would have been section 147/148 or section 263 but the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by making enhancement under section 251 of the Income Tax Act 13.13 The Division Bench of Delhi High court in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) reiterated that the first appellate authority cannot consider new scope of income under section 251(1) of the Act. "Section 251 of the Act prescribes the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, now the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 251(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of an appeal by the…

Devender Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 1, Rohtak

ITA 2509/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…being the case the correct recourse would have been section 147/148 or section 263 but the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by making enhancement under section 251 of the Income Tax Act 13.13 The Division Bench of Delhi High court in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) reiterated that the first appellate authority cannot consider new scope of income under section 251(1) of the Act. "Section 251 of the Act prescribes the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, now the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 251(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of an appeal by the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…being the case the correct recourse would have been section 147/148 or section 263 but the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by making enhancement under section 251 of the Income Tax Act 13.13 The Division Bench of Delhi High court in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) reiterated that the first appellate authority cannot consider new scope of income under section 251(1) of the Act. "Section 251 of the Act prescribes the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, now the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 251(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of an appeal by the…