Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688Supreme Court of India1991#29 most cited

What is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

1,372

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,887 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT · 187 ITR 688 · CIT(A) powers · Section 251 · appellate authority · new source of income · assessment confined to original items · additional legal grounds · Section 143(3) validity · Section 153C · Income Tax Act 1961

Also reported as

53 Taxmann 85

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

block periodsection 158bsection 119section 158section 127income escaping assessmentsection 149loose paperssection 132achief commissionersection 151section 92ca

Judgments citing Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot vs. Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot

ITA 49/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…d apply legal provisions, including the settled law that unexplained credit shall be taxed under deeming provisions. Reliance in this regard is further placed on the order of Honourable Supreme Court the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to susta…

Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…d apply legal provisions, including the settled law that unexplained credit shall be taxed under deeming provisions. Reliance in this regard is further placed on the order of Honourable Supreme Court the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to susta…

Shri Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 171/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

…d apply legal provisions, including the settled law that unexplained credit shall be taxed under deeming provisions. Reliance in this regard is further placed on the order of Honourable Supreme Court the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to susta…

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…of the 4 Ajay Jaisinghani intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions, wherein it was held that the additional claim of the assessee should have been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). a. Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. [(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)] b. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. [(1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bombay HC Full Bench)] c. Nirmala L. Mehta [(2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay HC)] d. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [(1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bombay HC)]. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that when the assessee is not aggrieved by the 143(1) intimation, there remains…

ACIT, CC-18, New Delhi vs. Sudha Pawa, Mumbai

ITA 1211/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Swati Pawa, New Delhi

ITA 657/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Swati Pawa, New Delhi

ITA 541/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar Pawa, New Delhi

ITA 540/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Jagat Projects Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6208/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Saurav Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 6198/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Sant Lal Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 6195/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…the root of the matter and facts relevant for adjudication are already placed on record. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC), we are inclined to admit the aforesaid additional ground for all the assessees. The additional ground raised hereinabove challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld Addl. CIT is taken up first. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the 10. assessees‟ before us for the year under consideration, we find tha…

Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…the Supreme Court decision (supra). The above additional grounds being legal grounds may kindly be admitted and adjudicated in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC v CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (S.C), Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). The powers of the appellate authority being co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer, the claim of the Appellant may kindly be admitted and adjudicated.” 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 157 Taxm…

Paras Rameshchandra Doshi, Rajkot vs. The PCIT - 1, Rajkot

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…d apply legal provisions, including the settled law that unexplained credit shall be taxed under deeming provisions. Reliance in this regard is further placed on the order of Honourable Supreme Court the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustai…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cr Building vs. Pc Jeweller Limited, Delhi

ITA 2581/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

…1 ITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024 C.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2581 & 3084/DEL/2024 Asstt. Yrs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vs DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi. APPELLANT P.C. Jeweller Limited, C-54, Preet Vihar, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092. PAN: AADCP 5443 Q RESPONDENT C.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024 ITA No. 2581 & 3084/DEL/2024 Asstt. Yr: 2015-16 & 2016-17 P.C. Jeweller Limited, C-54, Preet Vihar, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092. PAN: AADCP 5443 Q CROSS OBJECTOR Vs DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…nce both these grounds of appeal are legal in nature and the assessee requested for admission of same by placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT [1997] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). After perusing the grounds of appeal, we find that both these grounds of ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 appeal are legal in nature and need no verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same are admitted for adjudication. 22. Additional Ground No.1 is not pressed by the assessee during the course of…

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…nce both these grounds of appeal are legal in nature and the assessee requested for admission of same by placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT [1997] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). After perusing the grounds of appeal, we find that both these grounds of ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 appeal are legal in nature and need no verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same are admitted for adjudication. 22. Additional Ground No.1 is not pressed by the assessee during the course of…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…nce both these grounds of appeal are legal in nature and the assessee requested for admission of same by placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT [1997] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). After perusing the grounds of appeal, we find that both these grounds of ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 appeal are legal in nature and need no verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same are admitted for adjudication. 22. Additional Ground No.1 is not pressed by the assessee during the course of…

Mr. Kamal Jajoo, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(3) C B Central Range-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5267/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmr. Kamal Jajoo Vs. Dcit, Cc 4(3) Flat No. 2/B Jai Hind Estate Cb Central Range -4 Ld.Dr. Am Road. Air India Bldg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Abvpj3150A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 14.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drawn Our Attention To The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Seeking Admission Of 2 Mr. Kamal Jajoo., Mumbai

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…his regard, I am convinced that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal in question and goes to the roots of the case and therefore, while placing reliance upon the decision of NTPC Vs. CIT, 2 to 9 ITR 383, Jute Corp of India Ltd Vs CIT 187 ITR 688 and also Ahmadabad Electricity Company Limited Vs CIT, 199 ITR 351, I allow the application filed 4 Mr. Kamal Jajoo., Mumbai by the assessee for raising additional ground and hence the additional grounds are admitted to be heard on merits. The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are bad in law and without jurisdict…

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

…he scope of his powers is co-terminus with that of the Income tax officer. He can do what the Income tax officer can do and also directly to do what he is failed to do. This view was reiterated by Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688. The least that was expected from the Ld.CIT(A) was at least to give cognizance to the submission of the assessee reproduced by the AO in his penalty order and thereafter to adjudicate the issue. 9 ITA No. 32/JPR/2025 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Kota 2.6 The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in Multiv…

M/S Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5451/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…cannot be considered to be any good reason to justify admission of the claim. 45. It was further submitted that in the NTPC judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to and reiterated its earlier decision in Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in the matter. In this Page 33 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T context it is impo…