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

Goel Exim India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

ITA 1201/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 2606/4, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, Central Circle-28, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Goel Exim India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd.2606/4, Central Circle-28, 1St Floor, Solitaire Plaza, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Pan : Aaccg1799B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Vs. M/s. Goel Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 2606/4, 1st Floor, Solitaire Plaza, Central Circle-28, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 PAN : AACCG1799B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) M/s. Goel Exim India Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd.2606/4, Central Circle-28, 1st Floor, Solitaire Plaza, New Delhi Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 PAN : AACCG1799B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of he…

DCIT Central Circle 28, New Delhi vs. Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT M/s Ginni Gold Pvt. Central Circle-28 Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Shop No.105, 2606, 2607, Solitaire Plaza, Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh Delhi-110 005 PAN-AACCG 9728Q (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Ginni Gold Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT Shop No.403, 4th Floor Central Circle-28 2633-2634 Vs. New Delhi Bank Street, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110 005 PAN-AACCG 9728Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Swati Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23/…

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT M/s Ginni Gold Pvt. Central Circle-28 Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Shop No.105, 2606, 2607, Solitaire Plaza, Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh Delhi-110 005 PAN-AACCG 9728Q (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Ginni Gold Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT Shop No.403, 4th Floor Central Circle-28 2633-2634 Vs. New Delhi Bank Street, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110 005 PAN-AACCG 9728Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Swati Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23/…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…justify the action of the ld. CIT u/s 251 (2) of the Act. 10.4 CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2002) 120 Taxman 595 Delhi (DPB 49), which is a decision rendered by larger bench and also examined the earlier decision given in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del) and held that “having considered various decisions of the High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court, it is inevitable that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt wit…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…justify the action of the ld. CIT u/s 251 (2) of the Act. 10.4 CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2002) 120 Taxman 595 Delhi (DPB 49), which is a decision rendered by larger bench and also examined the earlier decision given in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del) and held that “having considered various decisions of the High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court, it is inevitable that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt wit…

Sunil Eknath Loharkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

ITA 1785/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1457/Pun/2017 & Ita No. 1785/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ier years. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion the same deserve to be deleted on the legal aspect itself in light of CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001)251ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) and CIT Vs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) settling the law the CIT(A)’s enactment jurisdiction does not include to adding a new source/head of income in first appellate proceedings. We adopt the same reasoning to delete the impugned enhancement addition of Rs.44,69,650/- in issue for this precise reason alone. The assessee’s instant former appeal ITA NO. 1457/PUN/2017 is partly ac…

Sunil Eknath Loharkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

ITA 1457/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1457/Pun/2017 & Ita No. 1785/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ier years. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion the same deserve to be deleted on the legal aspect itself in light of CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001)251ITR 864 (Del.) (FB) and CIT Vs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) settling the law the CIT(A)’s enactment jurisdiction does not include to adding a new source/head of income in first appellate proceedings. We adopt the same reasoning to delete the impugned enhancement addition of Rs.44,69,650/- in issue for this precise reason alone. The assessee’s instant former appeal ITA NO. 1457/PUN/2017 is partly ac…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ition on account of trading was not a matter of assessment and thus, it is beyond the scope of powers of Ld. CIT(A) to make such an addition, for which reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Del). 11.2 It was also submitted that for the minor discrepancies which were pointed out in the remand report, they have all been clarified through 17 ITA 11/Chny/2021 & CO 6/Chny/2022 M/s. M. C. Hospital AY 2017-18 corroborative evidence and accepted. Therefore, the expression of lingering doubt by the ld. CIT(A) while resorting to impugned e…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…ppellate Commissioner is vested with all the plenary powers which the Income-tax Officer may have while making the assessment. Page 19 of 22 47. Indeed, examining Daluram's holding, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Union Tyres, Delhi [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) 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 observes, is…

Balaji Construction, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…tion 68 addition of the very sum also fails the test of legality as it amount to hold together a new head of income in first appellate proceedings not sustainable in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The same also stands deleted therefore. 3 No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. Delay of 850 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned since majority of this prescribed limitation falls in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak. The Revenue’s…

Vijay Baban Gunjal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(4) Pune, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 372/PUN/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. Sasar
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…has disagreed with section 68 addition, the very addition be made under a different head runs contrary to the settled contours of his lower appellate jurisdiction as held in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyers (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sadari Lal & Company (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi). I therefore delete the impugned section 69A addition for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 4. Delay of 101 days in filing of the instant appeal attributable to various communication gaps and outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic at its…

Kishor Gorakhnaht Bhagwat, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1295/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1295/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kishor Gorakhnath Vs. Ito, Ward-7(4), Pune. Bhagwat, A-103, Suyog Shivalaya, Sinhagad Road, Dattawadi, Pune-411030. Pan : Afapb9960M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 09.07.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Ito. Wd. 7(4)/407/18-19/121 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 54

…d be hardly in dispute that such an addition in the nature of altogether a new head of income in first appellate proceedings goes contrary to the settled legal proposition in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The impugned latter addition stands deleted for this precise reason alone. The Revenue’s vehement argument supporting the same are rejected therefore. 3 No other argument or ground has been pressed during the course of hearing. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed…

Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4903/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) 261 ITR 664. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. CIT (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 64 (All) to buttress the contention that the learned CIT(Ap…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…evenue’s hands are indeed tied at this stage as it would not be allowed to make any addition once the Assessing Officer has invoked Section 40A(3) only. Case law CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC) as well as CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) [240 ITR 556] (Del) hold that such an addition would not be allowed to be made even by way of enhancement in first appellate proceedings despite the fact that the CIT(A) is vested with his :- 14 -: ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016 C.O.Nos.8 & 9/Hyd/2021 jurisdiction co-terminus with the Assessing Officer. Their lordships make it clear that Section 251(1) enhancem…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 730/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…evenue’s hands are indeed tied at this stage as it would not be allowed to make any addition once the Assessing Officer has invoked Section 40A(3) only. Case law CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC) as well as CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) [240 ITR 556] (Del) hold that such an addition would not be allowed to be made even by way of enhancement in first appellate proceedings despite the fact that the CIT(A) is vested with his :- 14 -: ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016 C.O.Nos.8 & 9/Hyd/2021 jurisdiction co-terminus with the Assessing Officer. Their lordships make it clear that Section 251(1) enhancem…

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Suraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional AO 8th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, passed u/s 154 and…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ssment, and arose for his consideration as per the grounds of appeal raised before him, being the subject-matter of appeal.” 6.4 Also, we find that a similar view was way back taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 wa…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ssment, and arose for his consideration as per the grounds of appeal raised before him, being the subject-matter of appeal.” 6.4 Also, we find that a similar view was way back taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) observed, that the power of enhancement u/s 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 wa…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 815/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…llowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned identical interest disallowances in both these assessment years. No other ground has been presse…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 810/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…llowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned identical interest disallowances in both these assessment years. No other ground has been presse…