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. Mahavir Concast Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2508/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 147

…a legal 3 additional ground or even press legal plea at any stage of the proceedings. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Varas International – 284 ITR 80 (SC); ii) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT – 229 ITR 383 (SC); iii) DHL Operators – 108 TTJ 152 (SB); 3.2 The Learned AR submitted that the delay in raising the above additional ground may be condoned since there was no mala fide of the assessee behind it as it was due to lapse on the part of the counsel of the assessee. He submitted that when substantial justice and technical consideration have pitted against each other then the cause of…

Smt. Sudesh Yadav, Mahendergarh vs. ITO, Narnaul

The appeal is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sudesh Yadav, Vs. Ito, W/O Vijay Paul Rao, Ward-2, Prop. M/S. Mahaluxmi Petroleum, Narnaul. Narnaul Road, Mohendergarh. (Pan: Abrpy5153A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. Shubhangni Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31:03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Mainly On The Grounds That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowances Of: I) The Claimed Depreciation At Rs.4,56,960 On A New Tank Lorry Purchased For Rs.15,23,110; & Ii) Interest Of Rs.40,400 In Respect Of Old Advance Made To Dr. Rajbir Singh Out Of Self Capital. 2. Besides, An Application Has Been Moved By The Assessee Under Rule 11 Of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 For Allowing The Following Additional

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. ShubhangniFor Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(11)Section 32(1)(iii)

…nal ground is very much emerging from the assessment order and no fresh material outside the record is required to be considered for adjudication of the same. He also placed reliance on the following decision: i) NTPC – 229 ITR 383 (S.C); ii) DHPL Operators – 108 TTJ 152 (Bom.); & iii) Hukum Chand Mills – 63 ITR 232 (S.C). 3. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand opposed the application. She submitted that no such ground was raised by the assessee in her appeal before the first appellate authority and since the present appeal has been preferred against the first appellate order, the above additional ground cann…