DCIT v. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. (

108 TTJ 152Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#2756 most cited

What is DCIT v. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. ( authority for?

Additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue may not be admitted if they are not germane to the assessment.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. · additional grounds of appeal · revenue appeal · admission of grounds · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 41(1)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 135asection 2(40)section 253(2)within four yearssection 135approval under section 151penalty under section 270ainfrastructure facilitysection 153(3)section 131(1a)section 41(1)section 144ba

Judgments citing DCIT v. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. (

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 308/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 7. It is further relevant to mention here that the assessee had not raise these grounds categorically at the time of filing of appeal since the assessee was of the firm belief that the Approval of Additional Commissioner as stipulated in section 153D was in consonance with the provisions of law. However the assessee came to know the fact tha…

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 307/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 7. It is further relevant to mention here that the assessee had not raise these grounds categorically at the time of filing of appeal since the assessee was of the firm belief that the Approval of Additional Commissioner as stipulated in section 153D was in consonance with the provisions of law. However the assessee came to know the fact tha…

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.204/SRT/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOKPV5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.205/SRT/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOKPV5065Q (Appellant) (…

Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 359/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.359/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The ITO, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOSPB9227J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms Anchal Poddar, Advocate, Dr. Avinash Poddar, Advocate and Vijeta Choudhary, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 16/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A.…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as to why the additional grounds have been raised. The ad…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 464/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as to why the additional grounds have been raised. The ad…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 460/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as to why the additional grounds have been raised. The ad…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 459/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as to why the additional grounds have been raised. The ad…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 458/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as to why the additional grounds have been raised. The ad…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Chhotaray a/w
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…contention that the additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue did not merit admission the ld. A.R had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under :  DCIT Vs. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. (53 ITD 317) (Cochin)  ACIT Vs. DHL Operations BV (108 TTJ 152)(Mum)  Prakash L. Shah 115 ITD 167 (Mum)(SB) 7 Balaji TrustITA no.5139/Mum./2017  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (Mum)(SB)  CIT Vs. S.A Builders Ltd. (38 taxmann.com 255)(P&H) Apart from that, the assessee had also assailed the additional grounds of appeal qua the merits therein involved. 9. We have heard the ld. Authorized r…

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5089/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 132Section 153CSection 245CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 383 (SC) Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 7. It is further relevant to mention here that the assessee had not raise this ground categorically at the time of filing as the assessee was under bonafide belief that ground number 3 would cover the legality of proceedings. And hence delay in raising…

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT (C), Kh 267, 1st Floor, 7th Floor, HSIIDC Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. PAN: AAGCA0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated…

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ng on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC), and NTPC Ltd. vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC) and the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DHL Operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB) he submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee should be admitted. 10. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year vide ITA No.1856/Del/2016, order dated 17.02.2021, he submitted that under identical circumstances, 6 the Tribunal has admitted the additio…

ITO 27 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Late Smt. Jaswandi Dhlakia, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 670/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 148Section 292B

…are already on record of AO. Therefore same may be admitted and decided. 2. A legal issue can be raised for first time before ITAT in cross objection. ITO v/s Jasjit Singh (ITAT Delhi) (Cross Objection no. 138 to 142/Del/2014, dt. 23.09.2014)(DHL Operations 108 TTJ 152 (SB)(Mum) followed). Copy enclosed pg. 169 3. Notice u/s. 148 and 143(2) issued on dead person name is invalid and bad in law. 4. Assessment order passed in name of dead person is bad in law. 4 ITA No. 670/M/2019 & CO No. 18/M/2020 Late Smt. Jaswanti Dholakia  Where Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148 in name of deceased ass…

Shri Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2586/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhita No. 2586/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S-25, Green Park Main Market, Tax, Central Circle-7, New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipj6008K Assessee By : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R. K. Panda:

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 7. It is further relevant to mention here that the assessee had not raise this ground categorically at the time of filing of appeal since the judgment of Kabul Chawala was not there. Therefore the delay in raising this ground may kindly be condoned. Since it is settled principle of law that unless the malafides writ large the delay should be…

Knowledge Platform India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1333/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Knowledge Platform India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Circle-14(2), E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacck1186E

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 92C

…preme Court in the case of CIT vs. Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80 (SC); National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC); and the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DHL Operators reported in 108 TTJ 152 (SB), he submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted. 12.1 After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely a legal one, the same is admitted for adjudication. 6 13. Before adjudicating the additional ground, we would first like to decide the ap…

The Dy DIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. Reuters Transactions Services Ltd

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 9227/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…is contention that raising of additional ground of appeal in an attempt to build up a new case before the Tribunal cannot be permitted, the ld. A.R relied on the order of the „Special bench‟ of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. DHL Operations BV (2007) 108 TTJ 152 (SB)(Mum). Further, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that in case the order passed by the A.O was found to be erroneous, then the revenue was vested with sufficient remedial power to undo the same by revising the order under Sec. 263 of the Act, which however was not done. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the agreement f…

M/S. Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2592/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T K.H. No. 267, 1St Floor Central Circle – 1 Chattarpur Enclave Faridabad Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan : Aagca 0991 B [Assessment Year: 2012-13] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd K.H. No. 267, 1St Floor Central Circle – 1 Faridabad Chattarpur Enclave Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan : Aagca 0991 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT-DR
Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

…he appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO LTD vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC) Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 6. It is further relevant to mention here that in assessment year 2010-11, which is also impugned before the ITAT and pending adjudication vide ITA No-2591 of 2015, the assessee has raised the issue of satisfaction from the beginning of the proceedings at CIT(A) level, However, the issue of satisfaction, in the impugned year has skipped att…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Ambawata Buildwell (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2551/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T K.H. No. 267, 1St Floor Central Circle – 1 Chattarpur Enclave Faridabad Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan : Aagca 0991 B [Assessment Year: 2012-13] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd K.H. No. 267, 1St Floor Central Circle – 1 Faridabad Chattarpur Enclave Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan : Aagca 0991 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT-DR
Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

…he appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO LTD vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC) Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 6. It is further relevant to mention here that in assessment year 2010-11, which is also impugned before the ITAT and pending adjudication vide ITA No-2591 of 2015, the assessee has raised the issue of satisfaction from the beginning of the proceedings at CIT(A) level, However, the issue of satisfaction, in the impugned year has skipped att…

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

…. It is submitted that the above plea of the assessee is purely legal and goes to the root of the matter and no fresh finding exercise is required for deciding 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…