CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (396 ITR 251)

Q: 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.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (396 ITR 251), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(1), Section 147.

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

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

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

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…

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 34/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

…arge on the fact of the records it is the bounden duty of the appellate authorities to stand by the side of justice to readdress the grievance of a hapless assessee. 17. Also. Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation Pvt ltd (2017) 396 ITR 251 (MID) dated 06.06.2017 has ruled that if a claim made by the assessee does not form part of the original return, it could still be considered if the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities by themselves or on remand by the Assessing Officer . The failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the r…

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

…arge on the fact of the records it is the bounden duty of the appellate authorities to stand by the side of justice to readdress the grievance of a hapless assessee. 17. Also. Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation Pvt ltd (2017) 396 ITR 251 (MID) dated 06.06.2017 has ruled that if a claim made by the assessee does not form part of the original return, it could still be considered if the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities by themselves or on remand by the Assessing Officer . The failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the r…

Ramotar Singh HUF, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Rewari

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

…erwise also there is no estopple against the statute and the assessee can make a fresh claim in appellate proceedings. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., 396 ITR 251; decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 404; decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd., 349 ITR 136 and various other decisions. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case o…

Hexaware Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1861/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1861/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Unit No.152, Block –A, Sector -3, Millenium Business Park, Ttc Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aabca3203F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 80J

…ejected merely on technicality. To support his argument the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., 376 ITR 456 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. , 396 ITR 251 (Mad) (iii) Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain vs. DCIT (Exem.), 266 Taxman 399 (Mad) The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that rejection of claim despite all documents available on record constitute a mistake apparent from record. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that during the course of assess…

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ment by Section 12A(ba) to file it in time prescribed by Section 139(1) is only with effect from assessment year 2018-19. 7. Contention that a fresh claim made is to be considered by an appellate authority, ought to have been accepted (105 DTR 317 Chennai and 396 ITR 251 Mds referring to Goetz India Ltd. of 284 ITR 323 SC). 8. Excess application of preceding years ought to have been directed to be set-off as contended by Ground No.10 reproduced in the first appellate order. 9. Registration under section 12AA having been granted on 02-03-2016 with effect from 01-04-2015, it should have been accepted as applicable…

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1338/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ment by Section 12A(ba) to file it in time prescribed by Section 139(1) is only with effect from assessment year 2018-19. 7. Contention that a fresh claim made is to be considered by an appellate authority, ought to have been accepted (105 DTR 317 Chennai and 396 ITR 251 Mds referring to Goetz India Ltd. of 284 ITR 323 SC). 8. Excess application of preceding years ought to have been directed to be set-off as contended by Ground No.10 reproduced in the first appellate order. 9. Registration under section 12AA having been granted on 02-03-2016 with effect from 01-04-2015, it should have been accepted as applicable…

Thiagarajan Automobiles, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 7

ITA 1693/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. D. Divahar, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80

…income of an assessee in accordance with law and the proceedings of the Income Tax Act are not considered to be the adversal in nature. We refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation Pvt Ltd, (2017) 396 ITR 251, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’18. In sum, what emerges from a perusal of the ratio of the judgments cited above, in particular, the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Goetze's case and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.'s case, and those, rendered by the Division Bench of this :- 4 -: court in Ramco Cements Ltd. and CIT v. Malind Lab…

Kanchana Bai Chordia, Chennai vs. ITO Cw 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

…r is void. since it was cut and pasted of other assesse without application of mind (b) relief u/s 54 the Ac was negatived by the AO without any enquiry and it is duty of the AO is to inform relief available to the assessee (see ABHINITHA FOU\JDATION PVT. LTD.396 ITR 251 (Mad) (c) the additions made in the assessment had not become final and the matter has been taken before the Appellate authorities. 5. That the Appellant is entitled to relief u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act (See Reliance Petro (322 ITR 158 SC) 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds.” ITA Nos.2680 & 2681/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: 12. The bri…

Kanchan Bai, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

…r is void. since it was cut and pasted of other assesse without application of mind (b) relief u/s 54 the Ac was negatived by the AO without any enquiry and it is duty of the AO is to inform relief available to the assessee (see ABHINITHA FOU\JDATION PVT. LTD.396 ITR 251 (Mad) (c) the additions made in the assessment had not become final and the matter has been taken before the Appellate authorities. 5. That the Appellant is entitled to relief u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act (See Reliance Petro (322 ITR 158 SC) 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds.” ITA Nos.2680 & 2681/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: 12. The bri…

Swan Engitech Works Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 220/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swan Engitech Works Private The Income Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Limited, Room No. 659, Aaykar Bhavan, 1, Sahajanand Compound, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Acharya Done Marg, Sewree, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400015 Pan: Aaacs6331H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154

…ee, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders 349 ITR 336 (Bom), the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. 396 ITR 251 (Mad) decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Amit P. Pandya vs. ACIT (2014) 50 taxmann.com 276 (Mumbai Trib), order of the Kochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 35 taxmann.com 593, Agra SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hotel Crystal Inn vs. ITO (2018) 91 taxman.com 106 (Agra Trib.), and subm…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(3)Section 147

…n of the case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. c) CIT vs Sam Global Securities Ltd reported in 360 ITR 682 (Del) d) CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd reported in 396 ITR 251 (Mad) 12.6.1. In view of the aforesaid decisions of various High Courts including the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act can be admitted by way of an additional ground before us for the respective assessment year/(s), as it involves question of law and goes to the root of the mat…