How many judgments cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT?

1,372 judgments on BharatTax cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 142(1).

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 372,010 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 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

block period section 158b section 119 section 158 section 127 income escaping assessment section 149 loose papers section 132a chief commissioner section 151 section 92ca

Judgments citing Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…appeal/cross- objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. 12.3 In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688, this court, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 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 ITA No.838 to 843/Bang…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

S Kant Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1975/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 35

…“4(c) I have gone through the above submissions and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee's additional grounds are hereby admitted in view of Apex Court judgements in the case of Jute corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (187 ITR 688) and NTPC Ltd. Vs CIT (229 ITR 383). 4(d) The assessee submitted various material with regard to its claim of receipt in respect of Focus Market Scheme/Focus Product Scheme. From the facts it is understood that, Focus Market Scheme is designed to 8 M/s. S. Kant Healthcare Ltd. encouragement to make exports to selected markets. The objective of F…

Heena Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4177/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM ITA Nos. 4145 & 4177/Mum/2023 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Heena Gems ACIT-16(3) 2405, Panchratna, MP Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Opera House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No. AAAFH 4046 H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain Respondent by : Shri P. D. Chougule Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.09.2023, p…

Heena Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4145/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited vs CIT (143 taxmann.com 178). He also placed reliance on the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as given in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 in this regard and requested that the additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee should not be admitted. 11. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the time limit as extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was for filing appeals/suits etc. and that such extension was not applicable for issue of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act.…

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ordingly, the CIT(A) noted that this is a fit case of enhancement of income in view of power vested in CIT(A) u/s.251(2) of the Act and also relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT, reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), CIT vs. Nirbheram Deluram reported in [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC) and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., reported in [1994] taxmann.com 361(SC) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Megatrends Inc vs. CIT reported in [2016] 74 taxman 197 issued enhancement notice u/s.251(2) of the Act dated 11.03.2…

Bangady Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 739/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavbangady Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Agricultural Society Ltd. Ward - 1, Puttur Indabettu Village, Bangady Post Vs. Belthangady 574214 Pan – Aaefb0377M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061393066(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Multipurpose Co- Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Acceptance Of Deposits From Members, Lending Of Loans To Members & Providing Public Distribution Services. For The Year Under Consideration It Has Filed It Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2.96 Crores On 02.11.2017. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao), Inter Alia, Observed That The Assessee Society Is Not Governed By The Principles Of Mutuality & Hence Deduction Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…its available for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i). 5. Since the grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal and goes to the root of matter, we admit the same in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC -229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation 187 ITR 688(SC) 6. The Ld AR mainly challenged that the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ld. AO on two counts. a) In case interest income to be taxed under the head income from other sources the deduction of expenses to be allowed and remaining profits should be considered for deduction of 80(P)(2)(a)(i). b) The disallowance made by the AO on account of provision…

Gazal Caterers, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7752/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7752/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2009-10] M/s Gazal Caterers Vs. The Income-tax Officer C/o M/s RRA Tax India Ward – 22(2) D – 28, South Extension, Delhi Part – 1, New Delhi PAN – AADEG 9247 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This…

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…P)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we are admitting the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by assessee dated 07.06.2022 and 25.07.2022 stands admitted. Additional Ground as per Application dated 25/07/2022 6. The Ld.Sr.Counsel first referred to the application dated 25.07.2022 wherein the additional ground raised is challenging t…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…wise tenable in law.” iii. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IIv.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd [2008] 172 TAXMAN 258/ 306 ITR 42 (DELHI) 9 JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW VS ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR “16. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 6882 while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Supreme Court 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 statutor…

Jbs Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 439/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…essary screenshots and printouts are obtained from the records of the AO as also the ITBA portal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the following decisions for admitting the additional grounds of appeal: i) Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT [187 ITR 688] ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383] 4. We have carefully considered the matter and it is seen from the screenshots and printouts made available by the ld. A/R that indeed the notice u/s 148 of the Act was uploaded on 14.04.2021 only. A screenshot of the ITBA portal is also relevant in this case which is reproduced as under:…

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2768/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ore, the additional ground may be admitted for adjudication. 3. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT (187 ITR 688). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed for admission of additional ground. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee has challenged the impugned assessment as invalid as the said assessment was completed without complying with the mandatory CBDT Instructions/Guidelines in relation to cases s…

Mohammad Ibrahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1408/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Ibrahim……..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 6 Jhautala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aanpi9964N] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Of Making The Addition Of Rs. 47,55,787/- By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii). 2 For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is A Promoter & Real Estate Developer & The Asset Purchased Was To Be Used For Business & Was Not A Capital Asset As Such Provisions Of Sec 56(2\(Vii) (B)(Ii) Were Not Applicable.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…e, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the AO has not referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of the property which is squarely overruling the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corp. of India Ltd vs CIT (187 ITR 688) and NTPC vs CIT (229 ITR 383). 4. For that without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata dated 28.12.2018 in respect of the settled matter of Md Gulzar, Other Co-Owner of the Subject Property and an inference drawn divorced of the same is a cha…

Ramasamy Pushpa, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 279/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.279/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ramasamy Pushpa International Taxation W2 (1) D. No.2/31, Sankarampalayam Chennai. Village, Kumaripalayam Post, Namakkal Dist 637 015. [Pan: Cvwpp 7128R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)

…the first appellate authority is vested with all plenary powers which the sub ordinate authority may have in the matter. In this connection reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Jute corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 187 ITR 688. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in not referring the property to the valuation cell of the Income tax department in as much as the guide lines fixed by the state Government is only for the limited purpose of collection of stamp duty and does not reflect the fair market value, even thou…

Tata Steel Limited (Successor to Tata Steel Long Products Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Tata Steel Ltd. ( Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor To Vs. Asst. Commis Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tata Steel Long Products Ltd. Tata Steel Long Products Ltd.), Tax-, Circle Circle- Rourkela Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2803 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Ms Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 37

…be raised at appellate stage also. In support reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements which are as under: P a g e 2 | 11 Assessment Year : 2014-15 1) NTPC Ltd vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) 2. Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs CIT(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co Ltd. Vs CIT(1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) 4. DCIT vs Wheels India Ltd (ITA No.251/Chny/2010 order dated 14th March, 2014 5. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.5018/Mum/2010) order dated 6th July, 2012. 5. Per contra, ld. CIT D.R objected to the admission of the additional grounds taken and submits that if th…

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

…see has raised additional grounds of appeal for both the Assessment Years and has prayed that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), the additional grounds may be admitted. In view of the settled judicial pronouncements, as the issues go to the root of the matter, we admit the same. 4. The assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. TPO / DRP erred in se…

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

…assessee. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Ld. AR pleaded for admission of the additional ground [for the first time] before this Tribunal by relying on the following case laws:- I. Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT and Another (187 ITR 688) (SC) II. Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs. ACIT (408 ITR 500) (Bom HC) III. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom HC) IV. Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT (176 Taxman 316) (Bom HC) V. Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd Vs. DCIT (15 SOT 252) (Mum Trib) 4 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Concentrix Services India Pvt. Ltd. 5. Further, the Ld. AR fairly a…

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

…stigation of any facts. 5.6 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we are admitting the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Respectfully following the above, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, the additional grounds filed by assessee stand admitted. 6. The legal issue raised in the additional ground goes to the root cause of the assessm…