Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT

63 ITR 232Supreme Court of India1967#712 most cited

What is Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot permit a new ground requiring fresh investigation of facts unless it remands the matter or requests a report from the lower appellate authority. The ITAT possesses the power to remand or remit cases back to the authorities below in appropriate circumstances.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT · 63 ITR 232 · ITAT appellate powers · fresh investigation of facts · power to remand · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · remand to lower authorities · new grounds of appeal · Section 143(3) · Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 40A(3)Section 119Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 153(a)section 144basection 245dsection 244

Judgments citing Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Dwarka Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1567/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

M/S. Dwarka Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1566/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

M/S. Dwarka Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1565/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

Geefcee Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

ITA 6710/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

M/S. Tejasvi Investments (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6516/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

M/S. Bhavani Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

ITA 484/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 68

…H). 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mcorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 232 this court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…ibunal are confined to the subject matter of appeal. However, the powers of appellate commissioner are not confined to the subject matter of appeal but extend to the entire subject matter of assessment as held in case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. -vs,- CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC). 2.7. The principles laid down in the Apex Court decision have been relied upon by Hon'ble Guj. He in the case of CIT -vs.- Sayajj Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 - wherein it has been held that all questions, whether of law or of fact, which relates to the assessment of the assessee, may ordinarily be allowed to be raised by the assessee in app…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…l is not confined to the grounds raised in appeal before it (Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963), even as rules 11 and 27 of the said (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa Rules, as clarified in Hukumchand Mills. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 63 ITR 232 (SC), are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC), it was held that the tribunal had ample power to set aside the assessment made on an ‘Association of Persons’ and to direct the ITO to assess the members individually, or to direct the amendment of the assessment already made on the memb…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6870/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…sion of the Madras High Court in CED vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1986) 57 CTR (Mad) 162 : (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad), which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC), Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) and CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC), we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and 15 remand the matter to the file of the AO to determine the claim of the assessee on merits. 21. In view of the decisions cited (supra) the ground raised by the assessee al…

ACIT, Circle-1 vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 374/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…agree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED v. P. Brahadeeswaran ’ 163 ITR 680, which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMHan & ( [1958] 33 ITR 182 ; Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Text:. Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710. we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the claim of the assessee on merits.” 7. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment of…

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-I

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…agree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED v. P. Brahadeeswaran ’ 163 ITR 680, which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMHan & ( [1958] 33 ITR 182 ; Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Text:. Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710. we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the claim of the assessee on merits.” 7. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…nal under this rule: Provided that the Tribunal shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground.’ The Apex Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC), referred to both in Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Ahemdabad Electricity Co. (supra), held that rules 11 and 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules are not exhaustive of the powers of the appellate tribunal. They are merely procedural in character, and do not, in any way, circumscribe or control the power of the tribunal. In our…

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…ibunal (ITAT) to permit a new ground to be raised before it and the power under Section 254 to enhance the assessment and answer the said question on the basis of leading judgment in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) in the following manner:- “The question before us is limited to the power or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to go into the point of contention which has not been raised earlier by the Department. The observations made in Hukumchand’s case [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) have been pressed into service by the Tribunal for coming to the concl…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tions to the Revenue authorities (Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC)). Even rules 11 and 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal, as explained in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC). The assessee has placed some decisions by the tribunal in its’ compilation, which was, without referring to them, stated as being in support of the legal proposition being advanced. We have nevertheless perused the same. The same stand rendered relying essentially on the decision in Shanti Devi v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 532 (P&H). We say so as i…

Sh. Surinder Singh S/O Sh. Chanan Singh, Batala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 430/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…explaining the scope of the duty of the tribunal, held it as enjoined to issue appropriate directions to the lower authority. Case law in the matter is in fact legion; we may though refer only to a couple of decisions, viz. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB). It is this that leads us to hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law in-as-much as it is an in limine order, without addressing the merits of the addition/s impugned on their merits per a speaking order, as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to add, t…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

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

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…thin his right to raise the same during the course of hearing of the appeal. The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bombay (1967) 63 ITR 232 (S.C.) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-1, Vs Gilbert & Barkar Manufacturing Company, USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (iv) D.M. Neterwalla vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1980) 122 ITR 880 (Bom). The ld. A.R further to support his contentio…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…the subject -matter before it and therefore it was not permissible for the Tribunal to entertain the same in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection by the applicant-company.It referred to a decision of the apex court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd.(63 ITR 232).It further observed that such a plea on behalf of the assessee was not acceptable also on the ground that the benefit of deduction allowed earlier u/s.35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act was withdrawn by invoking the power u/s. 263 of the Act. Challenging the order of the Tribunal,the assessee filed a reference application u/s. 256(1) of the Act before the…

Shriniwas Shriteju Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2058/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2058/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Shriniwas Shriteju Sharma, Ito 19(1)(4), Mumbai (Prop. Seema Engg. Co.), Opp D/3/44, 1 St Floor, V. Shri. Ganesh Chs, Near Vakola Bridge, Near Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz(E) , Mumbai -400098 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aajps0743F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Malvika BajajFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2058/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Shriniwas Shriteju Sharma, ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai (Prop. Seema Engg. Co.), Opp D/3/44, 1 st floor, v. Shri. Ganesh CHS, Near Vakola Bridge, Near Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz(E) , Mumbai -400098 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAJPS0743F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Ms. Malvika Bajaj Revenue by : Shri. V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख /Dat…

Langar Committee Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla vs. Income Tax Officer, (Examption), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…grant of registration u/s. 12AA, which has admittedly not even been applied for by the assessee. We may at this stage also dwell on the powers of the Tribunal, which have, beginning with the decisions by the Apex Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), been examined, dilated and explained by the Hon’ble Courts of law in considerable detail, with the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cited cases stating that Rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal. In Kapurchand…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…ed by the AO cannot be taken back by the Tribunal. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) and the relevant extract is given below: "6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 this Court has held that under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [equivalent to section 254(1) of the 1961 Act], the Tribunal -was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are…