What is Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee-respondent can support an appellate order on any ground available to them, even if they haven't filed cross-objections, provided the new ground is a point of law and doesn't require fresh evidence.

How many judgments cite Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (282 ITR 321), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153C, Section 132, Section 133A, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (282 ITR 321)

DCIT,CC-18, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. JAGAT AGRO COMMODTIES PV. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1883/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…2. 129 ITR 475 (All) (Moralia& Sons vs. CIT) 3. 220 ITR 398 (Ker) 9CIT vs. Cochin Refinieries Ltd.) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT vs. Varas International P. ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) KharidVechanSangh Ltd. vs. CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs. Jindal Polyster Ltd. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 2 above. 3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional grounds and heard both the sides on these issues. In our considered…

DCIT,CC-18, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. JAGAT AGRO COMMODTIES PV. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1882/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…2. 129 ITR 475 (All) (Moralia& Sons vs. CIT) 3. 220 ITR 398 (Ker) 9CIT vs. Cochin Refinieries Ltd.) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT vs. Varas International P. ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) KharidVechanSangh Ltd. vs. CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs. Jindal Polyster Ltd. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 2 above. 3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional grounds and heard both the sides on these issues. In our considered…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SHRI BALAJI METAL TECH PVT LTD, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2167/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year 2013-14 Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt. Ltd. Tax,Centralcircle-25, New Haryana 20/21B, 2Nd Floor, Fruit Garden Delhi Nit Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan No. Aaqcs0136E Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Respondent Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate

Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2013-14 Commissioner of Income Vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt. Ltd. Tax,CentralCircle-25, New Haryana 20/21B, 2nd Floor, Fruit Garden Delhi NIT Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad PAN No. AAQCS0136E Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Respondent Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.Commissi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAMESH SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6881/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…2. 129 ITR 475 (All) (Moralia & Sons vs. CIT) 3. 220 ITR 398 (Ker) 9CIT vs. Cochin Refinieries Ltd.) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT vs. Varas International P. ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. vs. CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs. Jindal Polyster Ltd. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 3 above. 3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional ground and heard both the counsels on the issue. In our consider…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

ITA 4679/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Section 142Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

…sioner on all grounds including on grounds held against him by the Commissioner without filing an independent appeal or cross-objection.” Similar issue came-up before Division Bench of this Court in case of Dahod Sahakari KharidVechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Guj) in which the Court observed as under: “19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible to infer that the said party has accepted the order or the part thereof which was against the respondent. The Tribu…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. FARIDABAD PRESSWELL PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 2801/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

…sioner on all grounds including on grounds held against him by the Commissioner without filing an independent appeal or cross-objection.” Similar issue came-up before Division Bench of this Court in case of Dahod Sahakari KharidVechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Guj) in which the Court observed as under: “19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible to infer that the said party has accepted the order or the part thereof which was against the respondent. The Tribu…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

ITA 996/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43BSection 68

…spondent to have supported the order of CIT (Appeals) on this ground, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 200 CTR 265 (Guj), the Hon’ble High Court had observed that the right that accrued to the assessee respondent under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 could not have been taken away by the Tribunal by referring to the provisions of Section 253(4) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that though the issue regarding the…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI vs. RAKSHIT BUILDCON PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Circle 19 (1), Vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., C – 1/207, 2Nd Floor, Delhi. Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aaecr2414E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.08.2024 For Ay 2017-18. “(I) "Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A), Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Detailed Investigation Was Already Carried Out By The Investigation Wing On The Issue Of Bogus Short Term Capital Loss From Alankit Group & The Assessee Was Not Able To Substantiate Its Claim With Evidences."

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…9 ITR 475 (All) (Moralia & Sons vs. CIT) (iii) 220 ITR 398 (Ker) (CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd) (iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT) (v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) (vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. (vii) 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. vs CIT. (viii) 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd. He, therefore, prayed that the assessee may be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 3 above. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

ITA 356/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…spondent to have supported the order of CIT (Appeals) on this ground, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 200 CTR 265 (Guj), the Hon'ble High Court observed that the right that accrued to the assessee respondent under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 could not have been taken away by the 45 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur Tribunal by referring to the provisions of Section 253(4) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI BISHAMBHAR DAYAL AGRAWAL, JASHPUR (C.G.)

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

ITA 223/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(4)Section 69

…spondent to have supported the order of CIT (Appeals) on this ground, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 200 CTR 265 (Guj), the Hon’ble High Court observed 13 ITO-2, Raigarh Vs. Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal that the right that accrued to the assessee respondent under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 could not have been taken away by the Tribunal by referring to the provisions of Section 253(4) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court had o…