Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 143High Court2008#6976 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN INDORE vs. GURDEEP SINGH CHHABRA, INDORE

ITA 726/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…e, the same is admitted for adjudication in both\nthe cross objections. Finally, the applications of the assessee for admission of\nadditional ground are allowed.”\n(v)\nIn Peter Vaz 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bom) and DCIT Vs. Turquoise\nInvestments & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 143 (MP), the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh and Hon'ble MP High Court have vehemently approved the right\nof raising legal objections at any stage of proceeding.\n6.\nLd. DR for revenue, being very much knowledgeable of judicial view in\nthis regard, was fair enough in not raising any objection against\nadmissibility of additional grounds raised by assessee.\…

ITO, WARD-2,, KANCHEEPURAM vs. SHRI R. DHINAGHARAN (HUF),, KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 3329/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3329/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Shri R. Dhinagharan (Huf), Ward-2, Kanchipuram. Vs. 18, Gem Nagar, Sevilimedu, Kanchipuram – 631 502. [Pan: Aanhr-6593-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…stated that there is no such issue raised by the assessee, but he stated that he can raise this issue under Rule 27 of the Rules in view of the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 143 (M.P). 3. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the admissibility of the issue of satisfaction recorded by the A.O raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the Rules for the reason that the Tribunal Rules are :- 3 -: very clear on this issue and the issue can be raised only when the CIT(A) has allowed the relief and assessee want to support t…

ACIT CC-18 vs. NEENA HARDEEP SINGH,

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…nds/ claims in cross objection filed in response to the Departmental appeal before the Tribunal, provided facts are on record:  CIT vs Silver Line: 383 ITR 455 (Del)  CIT vs K Venkatesh Dutt: 319 ITR 331 (Kar)  DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.: 299 ITR 143 (MP)  Fast Booking (I) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT: 378 ITR 693 (Del)  DCIT vs Liquid Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.:  Steri Sheets Ltd in ITA No.546 & 547/Del/2000 (Del Trib.) ITA No. 1421/Del/2008 & C.O. No. 26/Del/09 Neena Hardeep Singh 12  Daler Singh Mehndi vs DCIT: [2018] 91 taxmann.com 178 (Del Trib.) We have given thoughtful consideration to…

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 819/IND/2017[14-15--26Q/Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 229 ITR 383, judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we admit the addl. groun…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

ITA 439/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 229 ITR 383, judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we admit the addl. groun…

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

ITA 359/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 229 ITR 383, judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we admit the addl. groun…

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 284/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 229 ITR 383, judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143 (MP). On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the request for admission of addl. ground but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. Considering the above facts and considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we admit the addl. groun…

BHOLA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. I T O 4(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 823/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…he case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 229 ITR 383, judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 as well as in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 143. M/s. Bhola Singh Thakur. 7. For the proposition that the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., was justified in allowing to raise the issue of legal ground for non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for the first time and that section 292BB of the Act is a rule of evidence and would not apply so far as failure of service of notice was concerned and that section 292BB is…

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1633/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on record and not disputed, as to the notice u/s. 148 being bad in law inasmuch as the relevant material is on record. The law in the matter is well settled, and the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 143 (MP) for the purpose, apposite, with in fact Rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 being also abundantly clear. 3. The appeals raise a simple, yet interesting issue, which is a mixed question of facts and law, i.e., whether the directors of the assessee-company can be said to have ‘lent’ moneys to it, i.e., to the exte…

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1632/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on record and not disputed, as to the notice u/s. 148 being bad in law inasmuch as the relevant material is on record. The law in the matter is well settled, and the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 143 (MP) for the purpose, apposite, with in fact Rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 being also abundantly clear. 3. The appeals raise a simple, yet interesting issue, which is a mixed question of facts and law, i.e., whether the directors of the assessee-company can be said to have ‘lent’ moneys to it, i.e., to the exte…

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1631/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on record and not disputed, as to the notice u/s. 148 being bad in law inasmuch as the relevant material is on record. The law in the matter is well settled, and the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 143 (MP) for the purpose, apposite, with in fact Rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 being also abundantly clear. 3. The appeals raise a simple, yet interesting issue, which is a mixed question of facts and law, i.e., whether the directors of the assessee-company can be said to have ‘lent’ moneys to it, i.e., to the exte…

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1186/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on record and not disputed, as to the notice u/s. 148 being bad in law inasmuch as the relevant material is on record. The law in the matter is well settled, and the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 143 (MP) for the purpose, apposite, with in fact Rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 being also abundantly clear. 3. The appeals raise a simple, yet interesting issue, which is a mixed question of facts and law, i.e., whether the directors of the assessee-company can be said to have ‘lent’ moneys to it, i.e., to the exte…

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…emand the proceedings to the Tribunal for consideration of the new grounds raised by the assessee on the merits. 6. Further, the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.[ 2006] 154 Taxman 80 (MP)[ 2008] 299 ITR 143(MP) affirmed by Hon`ble Supreme Court [2008] 168 Taxman 107(SC) wherein it was laid down that In view of the wide powers that the Tribunal is vested with as referred to and spelt out by Apex Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383, the Tribunal cannot be precluded from considering the questions of law arising in an asse…

ABB FZ-LLC,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…) PILCOM V ITO – 77 ITD 218 (Cal); ii) BCCI V DIT – 96 ITD 263 (Mum); iii) A.P. Moller, Maersk Agency India (P) Ltd. V DCIT (2004) 89 ITD 563 (Mum); iv) IAC V Daimler Benz AG, West Germany (1981) 36 ITD 508 (Bom); v) DCIT V Turuoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 143) (MP); and vi) DCIT V TVS Electronics Ltd. in ITA No.811/MDS/2010. 9.1.2 In PILCOM V ITO - (77 ITD 218) (Cal), the contention of the assessee was that payments made to non-residents are covered under Article 22 of the 27 IT(IT)A No.188/Bang/2016 DTAA dealing with ‘Other Income’ and hence the said payments are taxable only in the other country bu…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, H EAD OFFICE,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 are allowed and Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1079/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.1079 & 1080/Bang/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S. Nagendra Prasad, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra)………” 3.4.4 In fact, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court itself has not followed the decision of Tolaram Hassomal (supra) in its subsequent decisions. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Torquoise Investment & Finance Ltd., in 299 ITR 143 dt.28.3.2006 wherein the Hon'ble Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (267 ITR 654) held that the Tribunal could not be precluded from considering the question of law arising in an assessment proceeding and not raised earlier. It was held that the Tribunal was justified in law in recordin…

SHRI. E. KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as not followed the decision of Tolaram Hassomal (supra) in its subsequent decisions. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has analysed the powers of the Tribunals on admissibility of additional grounds in the case of Torquouise Investment & Finance Ltd., in 299 ITR 143 dt.28.3.2006 wherein the Hon'ble Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (267 ITR 654) held that the Tribunal could not be precluded from considering the question of law arising in an assessment proceeding and not raised earlier. It was held that the Tribunal was before the Assessing Officer…

Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 143) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax