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 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

Sanbtosh Hospital P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 282/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. T.S Kapoor & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Santosh Hospital P. Ltd. Acit No.1, Santosh Nagar, Vs Central Circle -6 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2244J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153C

…us material, therefore, same may be admitted for adjudication in view of various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court including judgments in the case of Natural Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). 3. The Ld. DR did raise objection regarding admission of ground No.1, 2, 3 & 4. However, he did not controvert legal position that ground No.3 of assessee of legal in nature that goes to the root of the validity of assessment order. 4. Keeping in view the submissions of both the side prayer of assessee and application of admission of addi…

M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(2)

…uments needs to be verified for adjudicating this ground 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 application dated 15/04/2022 raising additional ground stands allowed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, additional grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Blue Coat India is a subsidiary of Blue Coat System…

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…estigation of any facts. 18. 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. Page 15 of 23 19. The assessee in lieu of JDA dated 05/02/2011 was entitled to receive super built-up area of residential flats representing his 45% share that amounted to residential apartments, along with 9000…

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…vestigation of any facts. 8. 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 application dated 06/06/2021 raising additional grounds 16.1 to 16.3 stands allowed. As the above additional grounds raised by assessee goes to the root cause, it is necessary to adjudicate this issue first. 9. Before us the Ld.AR contended that the order passed by t…

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…vestigation of any facts. 8. 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 application dated 06/06/2021 raising additional grounds 16.1 to 16.3 stands allowed. As the above additional grounds raised by assessee goes to the root cause, it is necessary to adjudicate this issue first. 9. Before us the Ld.AR contended that the order passed by t…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…pporting such a claim and, therefore, such a claim ought not to have been allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before it for first time. 28. This decision has now been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, as turning upon its own special facts. We will revert to it a little later. This decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1, was also distinguished by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 778. The Andhra Pradesh High…

Narayan Industires, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 253

…ested in your Honour under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power co. Ltd Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 as also the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India v. C1T: 187 ITR 688. 3. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, the additional ground filed by the assessee is accepted. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “5. Under Section 254 of t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

…estigation of any facts. 4.5 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 application for raising additional grounds stands allowed for the year under consideration. Accordingly additional grounds raised by assessee vide application dated 25.07.2019 stands admitted. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 Assessee is a private limited…

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…uments needs to be verified for adjudicating this ground 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 application for raising additional ground stands allowed for the year under consideration. Page 15 of 25 ITA Nos. 40, 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Accordingly additional ground raised by assessee vide application dated 22.06.2022 stands admitted. 8. The assessee received a sal…

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…uments needs to be verified for adjudicating this ground 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 application for raising additional ground stands allowed for the year under consideration. Page 15 of 25 ITA Nos. 40, 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Accordingly additional ground raised by assessee vide application dated 22.06.2022 stands admitted. 8. The assessee received a sal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…uments needs to be verified for adjudicating this ground 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 application for raising additional ground stands allowed for the year under consideration. Page 15 of 25 ITA Nos. 40, 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Accordingly additional ground raised by assessee vide application dated 22.06.2022 stands admitted. 8. The assessee received a sal…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…me Court Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC) held that where on the pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record then there is no reason why appellate authority should not considered the question of law, so as it determine the correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law. However, where necessary evidences, which are required to be…

Mukesh A. Patel, Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.706/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh A Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi Ambalal Ni Wadi, Station Road, Vs. Nr. College Killa Pardi, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bjhpp 0041 D (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surji D Chheda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar– Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 55A

…re is any delay in filing the additional grounds, the same may be condoned. I am relying on the ratio of following judgments for raising the additional grounds: Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs., CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT(A) 187 ITR 688 (SC) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC)” 4.Although, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however at the time of hearing, the solitary grievance of the assessee has confined to the additional ground No.1. The ld Counsel pointed out that prior to 1st July, 2012, Assessing Officer cannot make reference to the V…

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Vinati Organics Ltd., ACIT-CC-11(3)(2), 11th floor, 1102, Parinee 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Crescenzo, G Block, Plot No. Vs. Marg, C38/39, Behind MCA, BKC, Mumbai-400021. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAACV 6538 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Vinati Organics Ltd., Central Circle-2(2), 11th floor, 1102, Parinee Old CGO Building, 8th floor, M.K. Vs. Crescenzo, G Block, Plot R…

M/S. Amara Jyothi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…vestigation of any facts. 8. 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 application for raising additional grounds stands allowed for both the years under consideration. Page 7 of 13 ITA Nos. 690 & 698/Bang/2017 9. Ground nos. 1 to 2 is general in nature and do not require adjudication. 10. Ground no. 3 is in respect of denial of the c…