CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath v. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz

22 ITR 502High Court1952#3878 most cited

What is CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath v. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz authority for?

The case establishes that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to confirm, reduce, or annul the assessment or penalty, as defined under Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This power extends to all the matters which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) could have considered.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Macmillan · CIT vs. Nawaz · Jagarnath v. CIT · Gajalakshmi vs. CIT · Section 251(1) · Section 251 · Commissioner (Appeals) · Assistant Commissioner · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · powers of ITAT · appeal powers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 132(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 245hasection 245section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)business expediencysection 251section 24commissioner (appeals)section 132(4)section 263section 26assistant commissioner

Judgments citing CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath v. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz

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)

…hich is paramateria with the provisions of sec.251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering the decision has quoted the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd., vs., CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras), where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that, the power conferred upon the AAC by this clause is undoubtedly wider and is not restricted to the subject matter of the appeal. It was held that, though the appeal was confined in its subject-matter to a portion of the order, it would be open to the AAC to deal with the whole of the asse…

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./2025 paramateria with the provisions of sec.251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while rendering the decision has quoted the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd., vs., CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras), where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that, the power conferred upon the AAC by this clause is undoubtedly wider and is not restricted to the subject matter of the appeal. It was held that, though the appeal was confined in its subject-matter to a portion of the order, it would be open to the AAC to deal with the whole of the asse…

Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…e reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income. The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer."…

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, supra, considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory vs. CIT reported in [1952] 22 ITR 502 has considered “ofcourse, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for the purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer” and finally the Hon’ble Supreme Court held t…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…e. The answer stands in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in 44 ITR 891 wherein it was held as under: In Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502, it has been held by the Madras High Court that it would not be open to the AAC to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the ITO. In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagat Prasad v. CIT, the Division Bench appeared to have ap…

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR
Section 234Section 51

…, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following decisions. Page 8 of 15 i. CIT (Central) v. Bagmane Developers (P.) Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka) ii. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii. Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. V. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras) iv. CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Madras) v. CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Madras) vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Patel v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 692 (Bombay) viii. CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2007] 298 ITR 277 (Madhya Pradesh) ix. CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain…

Sugota Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…e reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer."…

Manjit Management Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2667/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [Pan : Aaecm 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…e reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows : "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income- tax Officer…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new sources of income." The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 ITR 502 where, at page 510, the Divisional Bench observed as follows: "Of course, it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), C…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), C…

CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath v. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz (22 ITR 502) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax