Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co.

46 ITR 1168High Court1962#7197 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. RAGOVA DEVELOPERS & AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…a course is against the law. 6. Per contra, learned AR submitted that such a course is permissible and as a matter of fact, no longer res integra. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. 46 ITR 1168 (Bom) for this principle. As stated above, Insofar as the impact of non mentioning of DIN on the face of the assessment order, the assessee placed reliance on the Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14/08/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings…

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…Ltd Vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 0383 • Wipro Finance ltd Vs. CIT [2022] 326 ITR 113 (SC) • Avery Cycle Industries Ltd Vs. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 493 (P&H) • Chitturi Subbanna Vs. Kudapa Subbanna & Others [1964] 1965 AIR 1325 (SC) • CIT Vs. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.) 6. It was further submitted that in respect of an issue for which all facts are on record, the assessee can raise ITA No. 296-Chd-2020 - Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi 5 alternate arguments and in support, the reliance was placed on following decisions: • CIT Vs. Barat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATYA SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6673/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…he ITAT Rules, pertaining to issues relating to the assumption of jurisdiction and the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act.” 12. We further find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Hazarimal Nagji & Co., [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom), observed as under: “A respondent, unless he has filed an appeal himself or filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by his opponent, will not be entitled to challenge that part of the lower court's decree which is against him, and the appellate court will have no power or jurisdiction to permit him to do so. But, in so far as he only wa…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATYA SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6669/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…he ITAT Rules, pertaining to issues relating to the assumption of jurisdiction and the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act.” 12. We further find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Hazarimal Nagji & Co., [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom), observed as under: “A respondent, unless he has filed an appeal himself or filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by his opponent, will not be entitled to challenge that part of the lower court's decree which is against him, and the appellate court will have no power or jurisdiction to permit him to do so. But, in so far as he only wa…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AT & S INDIA LIMITED, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 1311/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, CIT, D/R
Section 250

…all before the lower income tax authorities, such a ground cannot be taken up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to permit the same. (i) Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of CIT vs. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom) (ii) Decision of the Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the matter of Apps Labs Technologies (P.) Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com 11 In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid allegation raised by the Revenue has no valid basis. The copies of the aforesaid decisions are placed on record. 21. It was alleged by the Revenue t…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result and with the observations as above, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3567/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…assessee thus gets no additional advantage by the petition under rule 27. 8. While dealing with this issue, it is useful to take note of certain judicial precedents from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In the case of CIT Vs Hazarimal Nagji & Co [(1962) 46 ITR 1168 (Bom)], Their Lordships upheld the plea of the assessee that any additional ground could be raised by the Tribunal, even if not agitated before the CIT(A), as long as it supports, and to the extent it does support, the conclusions arrived at by the first appellate authority. However, even then, Their Lordships put in a word of caution by agreeing…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FERN HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3682/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiacit Vs. M/S Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/S Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2Nd Floor Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. M/S Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2Nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccr3509E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R
Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…bserved as under: “The only question is whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.), after considering the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder, held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code. It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RANBAXY HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3108/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiacit Vs. M/S Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/S Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2Nd Floor Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. M/S Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2Nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccr3509E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R
Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…bserved as under: “The only question is whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.), after considering the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder, held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code. It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. JUBILANT ENPRO P. LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3485/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Acit, Circle 1 Vs. M/S Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. Noida 201 301 Plot No.1-A Sector 16 A Noida 201 301 Pan: Aaace0653L

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 28

…refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.), after considering the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder, held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code. It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in…

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…backdrop of the aforesaid facts, that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay after referring to its earlier orders in the case of B.R. Bamasi v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bombay) and Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hazarimal Nagji & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 1168 (Bombay), had dealt with the scope of powers vested with a respondent under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The High Court had observed that under Rule 27 the respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appealed against the order, on any of the grounds decided against him. (iii) DCIT, CC-…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1753/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…pondent to raise this issue for the first time before the Tribunal without filing any cross appeal or cross objection, the ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [46 ITR 1168], wherein it was held as under:- “Reading the provisions of section 33(4) of 1922 Act and the relevant rules it seemed that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code. Now, a respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on any…