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

G.Narasiman, Erode vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1000/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 26.07.2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). Further still, r. 11 & 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules are not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC)). In fact, continuing further, even if the said 11 G.Narasiman v. ITO ground/s are taken as admitted, i.e., for the sake of argument, the same is to be answered on the basis of ‘admitted’ facts, i.e., the assessee filing the revised return and contesting the late filing of the first return (by one month) on the factual basis that he is a w…

Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…the following decisions with regard 16 Shyamala Pictures And Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT to the nature and scope of the duty and power of the tribunal/appellate authority: Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC); Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India…

John Crane Sealing Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…so directing, travelled outside our ambit, draw reference to the following decisions regarding the scope of the powers of the tribunal, rendered in different fact settings: Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC); Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India…

DCIT, Chennai vs. John Crane Sealing Systems (India) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 621/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…so directing, travelled outside our ambit, draw reference to the following decisions regarding the scope of the powers of the tribunal, rendered in different fact settings: Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC); Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1681/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s 25A. Before assessing the income, an order on status of partition of MUF was mandatory. v. Hon'ble Apex Court held ITAT could not just annul the defective order. IT had a duty to direct the AO to do it afresh as per law. B. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.K CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) PI see par on page 4 onwards starting with the sub-heading "Civil Appeals Nos. 411 to 413 of 1965 ” Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 i. Similarity of facts in present appeal and the above case. ii.Important portion of the said judgment as under: "Even assuming that rules 12 and 27 are not strictly applicable, we are of opinion that the…

M/S D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 75/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s 25A. Before assessing the income, an order on status of partition of MUF was mandatory. v. Hon'ble Apex Court held ITAT could not just annul the defective order. IT had a duty to direct the AO to do it afresh as per law. B. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.K CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) PI see par on page 4 onwards starting with the sub-heading "Civil Appeals Nos. 411 to 413 of 1965 ” Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 i. Similarity of facts in present appeal and the above case. ii.Important portion of the said judgment as under: "Even assuming that rules 12 and 27 are not strictly applicable, we are of opinion that the…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1018/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s 25A. Before assessing the income, an order on status of partition of MUF was mandatory. v. Hon'ble Apex Court held ITAT could not just annul the defective order. IT had a duty to direct the AO to do it afresh as per law. B. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.K CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) PI see par on page 4 onwards starting with the sub-heading "Civil Appeals Nos. 411 to 413 of 1965 ” Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 i. Similarity of facts in present appeal and the above case. ii.Important portion of the said judgment as under: "Even assuming that rules 12 and 27 are not strictly applicable, we are of opinion that the…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 149/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…ncomitant would be a revision in the charge of depreciation thereon. We direct accordingly. Lest we may be considered as having travelled outside the purview of this appeal, reference is made to the decisions, inter alia, in Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT vs. Ramnath Goenka (Decd.) & Othrs.[2001] 252 ITR 653, 654 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 148/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…ncomitant would be a revision in the charge of depreciation thereon. We direct accordingly. Lest we may be considered as having travelled outside the purview of this appeal, reference is made to the decisions, inter alia, in Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT vs. Ramnath Goenka (Decd.) & Othrs.[2001] 252 ITR 653, 654 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983…

Flughafen Zurich Ag, Bangalore vs. DDIT International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1525/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT -2 & Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT-2
Section 143(3)

…a subject matter before DRP, the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised even if the outcome of the adjudication of the subject matter may result enhancement of total income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Millls Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 ITR 232 as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 199 ITR 351. The full bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court while deciding the issue of the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enhance the tax liability has held that the Tribunal while dealing with an appeal enhance the tax liability of the assesse if…

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 79

…151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back as in Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC). Indeed in that case, the Revenue, though not in appeal, raised a contention not in support of the order appealed against, even as noted by the Hon’ble Court in Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. (page 718). We are, considered in perspective, in fact not withdrawing any relief as such, but only ensuring that there is no disregard of the expre…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mckinsey Kinowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 499/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Circle-16(2), Vatika Business Park, New Delhi. Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Mckinsey Knowledge Circle-16(2), Centre Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, New Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate & Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr & Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue - Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…such a ground not taken in the departmental cross appeal. An oral request can be accepted as a substitute of a formal application. Delhi bench of the tribunal in ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del), following Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC), has held that even without rule 27, it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise a new ground in defence of the order appealed against. 33 35. Now, we espouse the contention of the ld. DR for the exclusion of two comparables companies chosen by the assessee and approved by the Officer in the proceedings. The TPO,…

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 154/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Circle-16(2), Vatika Business Park, New Delhi. Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Mckinsey Knowledge Circle-16(2), Centre Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, New Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate & Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr & Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue - Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…such a ground not taken in the departmental cross appeal. An oral request can be accepted as a substitute of a formal application. Delhi bench of the tribunal in ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del), following Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC), has held that even without rule 27, it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise a new ground in defence of the order appealed against. 33 35. Now, we espouse the contention of the ld. DR for the exclusion of two comparables companies chosen by the assessee and approved by the Officer in the proceedings. The TPO,…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. Maruti Center for Excellence, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 897/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi Nath Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 260A

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ANADI NATH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.897/Del./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITO (E), vs. Maruti Centre for Excellence, 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Building, Trust Ward IV, Delhi. K.G. Marg, New Delhi. (PAN : AAATM7499K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Shri Tejasvi Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 14.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2016 O R D…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…one, there is scope for the play of the Tribunal‘s discretion. As to the very power to entertain a new plea, that is not to be ruled out, merely because a consideration thereof would call for further facts to be gone into. In Hukumchand Mills‘ decision [1967] 63 ITR 232, the Supreme Court laid down no fetter on the Tribunal‘s powers. That case, indeed, was a case where the new plea raised by the department before the Tribunal could not be considered without a further investigation into facts. Nevertheless, the Tribunal entertained the plea, and remitted the case to the ITO for the ascertainment of the relevant fa…

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)

…sment 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 cannot be allowed for the adjudication of the ITAT.…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 153A

…tually indeterminate, and requires further investigation before some definite findings are arrived at. Toward the tribunal’s competence to direct so, we may refer to s. 254(1) of the Act r/w r. 28 of the Rules (also refer: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 63 ITR 232, 237 (SC); Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 376, 403 (Bom); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau)), to cite few. Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the assessing authority for adjudication afresh in accordance with the law. Needless to add, the assessee shall…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/1931/2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rovision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and, therefore, there had to be accumulative discussion, the issue was specifically raised by the assessee itself before the Tribunal. (See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, Central, Bombay, 63 ITR 232, Auto and Metal Engineers and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 229 ITR 383 and The Assam Tribune Vs. CIT & Another, 285 ITR 452]. Furthermore, it would be relevant to point out that the legal position stated in Para 16 by the Tribunal is correct in law and even the assessee is not in a position to dislodge the same. It is for this rea…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-1931/2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rovision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and, therefore, there had to be accumulative discussion, the issue was specifically raised by the assessee itself before the Tribunal. (See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, Central, Bombay, 63 ITR 232, Auto and Metal Engineers and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 229 ITR 383 and The Assam Tribune Vs. CIT & Another, 285 ITR 452]. Furthermore, it would be relevant to point out that the legal position stated in Para 16 by the Tribunal is correct in law and even the assessee is not in a position to dislodge the same. It is for this rea…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ARB.A.-ITA/1931HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rovision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and, therefore, there had to be accumulative discussion, the issue was specifically raised by the assessee itself before the Tribunal. (See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, Central, Bombay, 63 ITR 232, Auto and Metal Engineers and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 229 ITR 383 and The Assam Tribune Vs. CIT & Another, 285 ITR 452]. Furthermore, it would be relevant to point out that the legal position stated in Para 16 by the Tribunal is correct in law and even the assessee is not in a position to dislodge the same. It is for this rea…