JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.

115 TTJ 752High Court2008#2838 most cited

What is JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is allowed to make a claim during assessment proceedings even if it was not made in the original return of income, provided it is pointed out by the Assessing Officer. This is supported by the Tribunal's decision in JCIT vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.

41

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

JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. · claim during assessment · not in return · Goetze India · assessment proceedings · allowed claim · additional claim · Delhi ITAT

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…d to the 25 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Assessee. These facts find mention in para 4.2 of the draft assessment order. 36. The Authorized Representative of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of JCIT vs Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Del. ITAT) (Third Member), wherein after considering the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India (supra), on a similar issue, decided in favour of the assessee. 37. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 313/Del/2012]wherein the Tribu…

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…can made before the AO otherwise then by filing revised A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 return. In his support he referred cases of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), Ramco International (332 ITR 306), Chicago Pnematic India Ltd. (15 SOT 252), Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. (115 TTJ 752) and Raj Rani Gulati (345 ITR 350). DR supported the order of the FAA. 12.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the FAA has rejected the claim made by the assessee as he was of the opinion that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income. We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High C…