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 153CSection 153ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18section 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

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot)ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. P…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 842/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) B. 132(4) Statement per se is not an incriminating material - : For this proposition, he relied on the…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…dgements as follows: A. Claim to be entertained even if not made in ITR and income to be assessed and tax to be collected as per Art 265 of Constitution: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. 2017 396 ITR 251 2. DCIT V. CMS Securities Ltd., (2016) 47 ITR (Trib) 378 3. Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT)(Mum) (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 324 4. M/s. Maruti Enterprise, Amreli Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore (2023) ITA No.10/Rjt/2023 dated 20 March, 2024 (ITAT, Rajkot) ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil Jo…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…lity - vide Lord Hewart in Rex v. Special CIT [1935] 20 TC 381 (CA); Greer L.J. in IRC v. Sneath [1932] 17 TC 149 (CA); Romer L.J. in the same case, Sneath ( supra) and Lord Wright M.R. in Rex's case (supra).” ii. CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad.) “if a claim made by the assessee does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal) by themselves, or on remand, by the Assessing Officer.…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…has failed to do. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 6. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and also filed copy of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad). 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the AO is aware about the fact that the properties of assessee i.e., hotel property was sold by IFCI to Robust Hotels Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.251 Crores and commercial complex mortgaged to ICICI Bank was sold to Ramani Hotels…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…has failed to do. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 6. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and also filed copy of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad). 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the AO is aware about the fact that the properties of assessee i.e., hotel property was sold by IFCI to Robust Hotels Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.251 Crores and commercial complex mortgaged to ICICI Bank was sold to Ramani Hotels…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…has failed to do. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 6. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and also filed copy of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad). 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the AO is aware about the fact that the properties of assessee i.e., hotel property was sold by IFCI to Robust Hotels Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.251 Crores and commercial complex mortgaged to ICICI Bank was sold to Ramani Hotels…

M/S Standard Chartered Global Business Service Private Limited (Formerly Known As Scope Internatinal Private Limited), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (1), Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in both the years

ITA 1588/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1587 & 1588/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Amulya. K, C.A &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…limited to rate of tax under Tax Treaty. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1998 229 ITR 383 SC and Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd 396 ITR 251 [2017] (Madras) to support admission of additional ground of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR, opposing the same, relied on the ITA Nos.1587 & 1588/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: decisions in the cases of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. G.S Rice Mils [1982] 136 ITR 761 (ALL) and the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of…

M/S Standard Chartered Global Business Service Private Limited (Formerly Known As Scope Internatinal Private Limited), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (1), Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in both the years

ITA 1587/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1587 & 1588/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Amulya. K, C.A &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…limited to rate of tax under Tax Treaty. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1998 229 ITR 383 SC and Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd 396 ITR 251 [2017] (Madras) to support admission of additional ground of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR, opposing the same, relied on the ITA Nos.1587 & 1588/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: decisions in the cases of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. G.S Rice Mils [1982] 136 ITR 761 (ALL) and the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. v. CIT (supra), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad), in the case of CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has not only made it clear that the power of the appellate authorities to consider claims made based on the materials already available on record is co-terminus with the power of the Assessing Officer and the failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the revised return cannot denude the…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. v. CIT (supra), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad), in the case of CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has not only made it clear that the power of the appellate authorities to consider claims made based on the materials already available on record is co-terminus with the power of the Assessing Officer and the failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the revised return cannot denude the…

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

…ee is entitled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in return filed by it. 12. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd., reported in 396 ITR 251, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that even if a claim made by assessee company does not form part of original return or even revised return, it can still be considered by Assessing Officer as well as appellate authorities in case relevant material is available on record. 13. Referring to the decision of the…

Dy CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 7672/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit -15(2)(1) M/S Hexaware Technologies 3Rd Floor, Room No. 357, Vs. Ltd., Unit No. 152, Millennium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Business Park, Ttc, Marine Lines, Industrial Area, Mahape, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 710

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288Section 80J

…ort his contention that CIT(A) has the power to consider the claim made otherwise than in the return of income, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundations (P) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad). It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee was qua the additional wages that were paid by the assessee to its new regular workmen who were employed in F.Y. 2007-08 and F.Y. 2009- 10, as well as during the year under consideration. It was averred by the ld. A.R that as there was no c…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which, according to the Tribunal, arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case. Further, the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT, Chennai Vs. Abhinitha Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad), had observed, that even if a claim made by an assessee company does not form part of its original return or even the revised return, it can still be considered by the A.O as well as the appellate authorities in case the relevant material is available on record. In both the aforesaid judgments the Hon‟ble High Courts had referred to the jud…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…f the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which, according to the Tribunal, arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case.” Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. Abhinitha Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad), had observed, that even if a claim made by an assessee does not form part of its original return or even the revised return, it can still be considered by the A.O as well as the appellate authorities in case the relevant material is available on record. In both the aforesaid judgments the Hon’ble High Courts had referred to the judgment of…