CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

396 ITR 251High Court2017#1106 most cited

What is CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders authority for?

An assessee can make a fresh claim for deduction before the FAA, even if it was not part of the original return.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. · 306 ITR 42 · claim for deduction · fresh claim · First Appellate Authority · original return

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153C Section 153A Section 132 Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 18 section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Smt. Manjulaben Bipinchandra Patel, Baroda

ITA 44/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Smt. Manjulaben Bipinchandra Patel, Baroda

ITA 43/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Smt. Manjulaben Bipinchandra Patel, Baroda

ITA 42/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Smt. Manjulaben Bipinchandra Patel, Baroda

ITA 41/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 40/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 39/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 38/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 37/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 36/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 35/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 34/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 33/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Legal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 32/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Manjulaben B. Patel Lehal Heir of Shri Bipinbhai Prabhudas Patel, Baroda

ITA 31/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1915/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1914/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1913/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1912/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1911/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…

Smt. Manjulaben B. Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1910/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC). He submitted that AO was dut…