Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT

282 ITR 321High Court2006#3841 most cited

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.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT · Rule 27 · ITAT Rules 1963 · Section 253(4) · cross objection · new ground of law · CIT (Appeals) · Section 153C · validity of jurisdiction

Also reported as

149 Taxmann 456200 CTR 265

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 132Section 133ASection 147 of the Income Tax ActSection 148Section 148 of the Income Tax Act
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 33(4)non application of mindsection 33section 253section 260section 260arejection of books of accountcross objectionsection 145change of opinionsection 153dtangible material

Judgments citing Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Kishore Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 213/RJT/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Yashroy, Ld. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…the order of the First Appellate Authority in respect of grounds decided against it. Therefore, no separate appeal or cross objection to be filed. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh, 282 ITR 321 and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 408 ITR 517. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the contention of the Ld. AR that application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules to be decided first as the assessee’s case was reopened on the very same issue which were originally decided under Section 143(3) of the Act. Ld. DR submitted that the…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Kishore Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 212/RJT/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Yashroy, Ld. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…the order of the First Appellate Authority in respect of grounds decided against it. Therefore, no separate appeal or cross objection to be filed. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh, 282 ITR 321 and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 408 ITR 517. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the contention of the Ld. AR that application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules to be decided first as the assessee’s case was reopened on the very same issue which were originally decided under Section 143(3) of the Act. Ld. DR submitted that the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trust Circle- 3(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Baldwin Boys High School, Bangalore

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 1997-98 The Deputy M/s. Baldwin Boys Commissioner of High School, Income Tax, No. 14, Hosur Road, Trust Circle 3(1), Richmond Town, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue by Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 30…

The ITO, Ward-7(3), Surat vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Surat

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

ITA 1487/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…te of decisions of various High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft’s Ltd (259 ITR 19 SC). To support his contention the Ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the decisions of Gujarat High Court in Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Vs CIT (282 ITR 321 Guj) and Vahiwatdars of Ambaji Temple Cs CIT (58 ITR 675 Guj). The ld AR for the assessee further submits that case was reopened after four year from the end of assessment year. The assessee has disclosed all information while filing return of income, no new information or tangible material came to the notice to the assessing officer and / or the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s-objections, was not entitled to canvass the correctness of the finding on the bar of Order II Rule 2 rendered by the trial court." 14. Similar issue came-up before Division Bench of this Court in case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.) in which the Court observed as under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained unchalle…

Sanjay Sawhney vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/834/2019HC Delhi18 May 2020
Section 132Section 142(1)(ii)Section 153CSection 253(2)Section 260A

…tions, was not entitled to canvass the correctness of the finding on the bar of Order II Rule 2 rendered by the trial court." 14. Similar issue came-up before Division Bench of this Court in case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.) in which the Court observed as under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained u…

Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt.Ltd., Vapi vs. The A CIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known as Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ACIT-Vapi/ITA No.1688/AHD/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 1 of 20 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/AHD/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of (formerly known as Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-II, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [PAN: AABCB 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Responden…

The Dy. CIT, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, L/H. C.D.V. Subba Rao, Vijayawada

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

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…आयकर अपीली यअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada LR of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [PAN :ADAPC2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [PAN : ADKPC7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri…

ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak vs. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak

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

ITA 4340/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

Section 147

…ding this plea. And hence in view of the decision of NTPC reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and DHL operators 108 TTJ 152 (SB) (Mum.). 4. Assessee further seeks to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dahod Shekari Bank reported in 282 ITR 321 (Guj.), and of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brijwasi Impex for the proposition that rule 27 application is exempt from the limitation of one month which is applicable for filing of cross objections before the ITAT.” 3. The Ld. Sr, DR on considering the impugned order agreed that submissions assailing the jurisdiction have been adva…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Renu Nanda, New Delhi

In the result appeal number WTA 27/del/2014 for assessment year 2010 – 11 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3719/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d to canvass the correctness of the finding on the bar of Order II Rule 2 rendered by the trial court." 14. Similar issue came-up before Division Bench of this Court in case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 282 ITR 321 = 2005-TIOL-242-HC-AHM-IT in which the Court observed as under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained unchallenge…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Multiplex Capital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed on merits

ITA 6010/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 88E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA No. 6010/Del /2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 The I.T.O Vs. Multiplex Capital Ltd Ward – 5(4) 100/28, Keshav Tower New Delhi Rajapur Market, Sector 9 Rohini, New Delhi PAN : AAACM 1761 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 17.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2016 Appellant by : Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against t…