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 372,241 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

Preet Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 32(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)Section 54BSection 54F

…d. vs. CIT judgment dated 10.12.2014 in ITA No.13 of 2013 and contended that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) does not help the case of the assessee where the relevant facts are not available on record to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal. It was contended that the judgment rendered in NTPC case does not dispense with the vital requirements of availability of relevant facts on record. Further reference was made to the decision of the Co-ord…

M/S. Superbrands Limited (Uk), New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

ITA 654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

…we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.” 14. Similar view has been taken in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688. 15. In light of the above ratio, we find that this Tribunal is not required to verify any new facts. Therefore, the additional grounds raised are admitted. 16. We will first address to the additional ground which reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in passing a draft assessm…

Super Brands Ltd (Uk), New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

ITA 3115/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

…we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.” 14. Similar view has been taken in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688. 15. In light of the above ratio, we find that this Tribunal is not required to verify any new facts. Therefore, the additional grounds raised are admitted. 16. We will first address to the additional ground which reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in passing a draft assessm…

Shri.P.V. Raveendran, Kannur vs. The ITO, Kannur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

…estigation of any facts. 3.4 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 ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by assessee stands admitted. Identical issue has been raised by the assessee in both the years under consideration on identical facts. For sake of convenience, we refer to the appeal filed for A.Y. 2014-15 as under: 4. Brief facts of the cas…

Sri.P.V.Ravindran, Kannur vs. The ITO, Kannur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

…estigation of any facts. 3.4 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 ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by assessee stands admitted. Identical issue has been raised by the assessee in both the years under consideration on identical facts. For sake of convenience, we refer to the appeal filed for A.Y. 2014-15 as under: 4. Brief facts of the cas…

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5998/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan and C.T. Mathews
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ppeal.” 11 In support of its contention for admission of additional grounds of appeal, the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC); (b) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC); (c) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB); and (d) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders 349 ITR 336 (Bom HC). The assessee has also filed additional evidences in respect of the issues agitated in the additional grounds of appeal. The additional evidences field by the assessee are: (i) I.T Service agreement dated 25/0…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8739/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.133 & 8739/DEL/2019 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15] Eicher Motors Limited, The Joint Commissioner of Income 3rd Floor, Select City Walk A-3 Tax, District Centre, Saket, Vs Special Range-3, New Delhi- Central Revenue Building New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACE3882D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. And Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Sh. R.S. Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement .08.2022 ORDER PER SHAMI…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.133 & 8739/DEL/2019 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15] Eicher Motors Limited, The Joint Commissioner of Income 3rd Floor, Select City Walk A-3 Tax, District Centre, Saket, Vs Special Range-3, New Delhi- Central Revenue Building New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACE3882D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. And Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Sh. R.S. Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement .08.2022 ORDER PER SHAMI…

ITO -Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…n in the appeal filed against the second reassessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688, it cannot be disputed that the assessee could have raised this ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his appeal against the first order of reassessment. The pertinent question is whether the new ground could be taken in reassessment proceedings after remand. This takes us to another aspect of the question, namely, whether the ass…

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…n in the appeal filed against the second reassessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688, it cannot be disputed that the assessee could have raised this ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his appeal against the first order of reassessment. The pertinent question is whether the new ground could be taken in reassessment proceedings after remand. This takes us to another aspect of the question, namely, whether the ass…

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…n in the appeal filed against the second reassessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688, it cannot be disputed that the assessee could have raised this ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his appeal against the first order of reassessment. The pertinent question is whether the new ground could be taken in reassessment proceedings after remand. This takes us to another aspect of the question, namely, whether the ass…

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…n in the appeal filed against the second reassessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688, it cannot be disputed that the assessee could have raised this ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his appeal against the first order of reassessment. The pertinent question is whether the new ground could be taken in reassessment proceedings after remand. This takes us to another aspect of the question, namely, whether the ass…

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR
Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

…vestigation of any facts. 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 ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by assessee stands admitted. 7. Brief facts of the case are as under: 7.1 Textron India Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Textron Far East Pet Ltd. and Textron Inc. US. The assessee is engaged in undertaking design and development services inclu…

Shantilal M Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 252/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…s on 31.03.2016 Shantilal M. Patel 48,00,28,531.00 55,62,28,077.00 59,68,78,928.00 Capital Account Therefore, further clarification from the AO was requested in view of jurisdictional ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688(SC). The AO further clarified the issue as under: "2. In continuation of this office report dated 12/11/2018, it is to submit that on further verification of the case records it was found that the assessee had prepared multiple balance sheets for the said period ending on 31/03/2015. Copy of the said balance sheets as available on record are encl…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…idental connection.” 18. Learned DR on the other hand placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 it has been held that the power of the AAC is coterminous with that of the ITO and therefore the appellate authority can modify an assessment order on decide additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. The scope of his power is coterminous with the ITO. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do. The…

M/S. Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2570/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…stigation of any facts. 15.6 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 ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by assessee stands admitted. 16. The Ld.AR at the outset, submitted that the above issue have been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in IT(TP)A No. 492/Bang/2016 wherein it is…

M/S. Patel Brass Works Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ACIT-Circle-5, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 60/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

…nt and the appellate proceedings. In particular the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Ltd. (Supra), the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited (187 ITR 688 SC) and the decision of Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax 245 ITR 84 (Gujarat). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions of allowability of the deduction u/s 80IA. A…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…Appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO erred in holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars in income and thus initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 held as under:- "5. In CIT v Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which is almost identical to section 251(1)(a). The court held as under: (ITR p.229) "If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistan…

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…, needs to be considered. 18. Further all the details are available on record with the learned assessing officer and no new evidences are to be submitted. 19. In this context reliance is placed on the decision of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v CIT & Another 187 ITR 688 (SC) wherein it has been held that “……. the appellant's claim was based on the settled view of law, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to permit the appellant to raise the additional ground. It has been held that in the absence of any statutory provision the Appellate Authority is 9 Smt. Monica Chattopadhya vested with all the…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tarvinder Singh Kapoor & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Santosh Mahalingam, Vs Acit, No.1, Santosh Nagar, Pratap Central Circle-6, Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009. New Delhi. Pan-Cjkps5766C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2022

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

…ation or material into the facts apart from looking into the material already on record. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporate of India Ltd.v s CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), Ld.AR submitted that additional grounds may kindly be admitted for adjudication and revised regular Ground No.1 may also be taken on record. 4. Ld.CIT DR strongly opposed the admission of additional ground. However, in all fairness, Ld.CIT DR submitted that revised Ground No.1 raised by the assessee may be taken on record. 5. On careful c…