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

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

…ile an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. In the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, the Court, while dealing with the powers of the AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vest…

Reena Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1238/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2021-22 Reena Mittal, Vs. Dcit, H.No. 69, West Avenue Road, Central Circle-31, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aajpg3891Q) Jnahdewalan Extension, New Delhi -55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2021-22 REENA MITTAL, VS. DCIT, H.NO. 69, WEST AVENUE ROAD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI 3RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, NEW DELHI – 110 055 (PAN: AAJPG3891Q) JNAHDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI -55 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND A.YR. : 2021-22 PREETI GOYAL, VS. DCIT, H. NO. 71, FIRST FLOOR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, SHIVAJI PARK, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 026 3RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, (PAN: AAJPG3890R) JNAHDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI -55 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Ap…

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…of law. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the additional ground may be admitted for adjudication. In defense of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). 03. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly objected to the admission of additional ground for the reason that the same was not adjudicated before the AO or Ld. CIT(A) and is being raised for the first time before this forum. The Ld. D.R therefore prayed that the legal issue may b…

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…of law. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the additional ground may be admitted for adjudication. In defense of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). 03. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly objected to the admission of additional ground for the reason that the same was not adjudicated before the AO or Ld. CIT(A) and is being raised for the first time before this forum. The Ld. D.R therefore prayed that the legal issue may b…

Inno vs. Ource Services Private Limited, Mumbaivs.DCIT, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 06/01/2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

…ing investigation of the fresh Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 283 NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 283 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC). 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic private limited company and ic private limited compan…

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

…er before this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal to allow the raising of this ground for the 1" time keeping in view the ratios of the following judgments: a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) b) Jute Corpn of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) c) Siksha "O" Anusandhan vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 20 taxmann.com 798 (Orissa) 3.1.4. Paragraph 2 of the assessment order enumerates the reason for which the ITR was selected for 'limited scrutiny' and for the sake of convenience the same is reproduced hereunder: 2. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under Computer A…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…gh court); CIT v. Gokuldass & Co. [2002] 122 Taxman 849/253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan High Court) or Income tax Appellate Tribunal National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court); Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court); Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra); Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 625/250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court); Ooppootil Kurien & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 530/[2004] 266 ITR 409 (Kerala High Court) and these appellate authorities have the powers to consider the claim raised by the taxpayer. F…

Arti Dhall, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 1239/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1239/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 45

…de u/s 143(3) as void ab initio the legal ground be admitted and adjudicated upon. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (187 ITR 688). I.T.A.No.1239/Del/2024 3. Heard rival contentions. The assessee has raised the following additional ground: “The impugned order of assessment u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act is not valid in law as the same has been passed in complete defiance of the provisions of sec. 153C of the Act as the assessment order has been passed taking adverse view of the…

Paramasivam Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

ITA 281/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…Ld. CIT(A) can do what the Ld. AO can do and can also direct him to do what he failed to do", a proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Coal Syndicate (supra) which was followed in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and applied the principles of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their earlier decisions in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891(SC) and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) that there is a solitary but significant limitation to the power of Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act, namely that…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Patna vs. Munni Rai, Patna

ITA 269/PAT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Itat.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

…ile an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. In the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, the Court, while dealing with the powers of the AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vest…

Pinakin Dineshchandra Shah, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(2), Vadodara, Vadosara

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

ITA 1382/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Adjournment application filedFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

…ard to challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction for reopening of case u/s 148 on various counts which ought to have been accepted in the light of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT (1991)187 ITR 688(SC). 5. That Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to take judicial notice of the fact that in one of the co-owners namely Babubhai A. Joshi, no addition was made for alleged LTCG in respect of same land by the assessing officer, ITO, Ward, Patan by treating the said land as outside the definition of Capital Assets u/s 2(14) of the Act. Hence, following the "ru…

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…at no further verification of facts is required to be done from any quarter whatsoever. Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication as also the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688(SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). 04. The Id. AR vehemently submitted before us that the CBDT vide instruction no. F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, prescribed that the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act to be issued in a specific format. The Id. AR submitted that the said CBDT instruction is mandatory in…

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

…ed that the additional ground may kindly be allowed as it is legal issue which is arising out of the assessment records. The Ld. A.R in defense of argument relied on the following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 And also Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal) The Ld. A.R submitted that in the above decisions it has been held that even if the claim was not made in the return and/or before the AO or CIT(A) could be made before the appellate a…

Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Acit(Osd), Ward-1(2), Omaxe Square, Plot No.14, 3Rd Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Floor, Jasola District Centre, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn8914D Assessee By : Shri Amit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely coverd by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2010. Thereafter, the ld.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna, C.R. Building vs. Deepshree Properties Pvt. Ltd., Saguna Khagaul Danapur Patna

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

ITA 239/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69C

…ile an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. In the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, the Court, while dealing with the powers of the AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. (emphasis added) In the absence of any statutory pro- vision, the appellat…