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

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 690/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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…

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in 3 ITAs No.2025 & 2096/Bang/2017. M/s.Unisys India Private Limited. the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC), we admit the additional ground 12 for adjudication. 6. The learned AR submitted that vide additional ground No.12, the assessee challenges the period of limitation for passing transfer pricing order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was submitted that the order ought to have been passed on or before 29th January, 2015. However, in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in 3 ITAs No.2025 & 2096/Bang/2017. M/s.Unisys India Private Limited. the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC), we admit the additional ground 12 for adjudication. 6. The learned AR submitted that vide additional ground No.12, the assessee challenges the period of limitation for passing transfer pricing order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was submitted that the order ought to have been passed on or before 29th January, 2015. However, in…

M/S. Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

…record. The additional grounds raised are legal issues. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC), the additional grounds are admitted for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company, engaged in the business of development, maintenance and leasing of infrastructure for educational institutions in Bangalore. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the return of income was filed on 30.11.2014 declarin…

Newgen Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1549/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D Babu (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreedhar -(Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

…ngs, the assessee raised additional ground and submitted that it was eligible for this deduction and therefore, pleaded for admission of additional ground in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (187 ITR 688) and various other decisions. However, there is no discussion, whatsoever, on this ground in the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.2 It is settled legal position that the appellate authorities are not precluded from admitting new claims, if the same is otherwise in order. We also find that similar claim has…

M/S. Angelic Construction (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5535/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

…estigation into facts, the additional grounds are admitted for adjudication in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 229 ITR 383 (SC), and Jute Corporate of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC). 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel submitted that although several main grounds and additional grounds have been raised, however to cut the matter short, the grievance of the assessee would be, by and large, satisfied where the Short Term I.T.A. No.5535 /Del/2015 5 Capital Gains in dispute amounting to Rs.11,61,04,370/- assessed…

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…investigation of any facts. 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. We shall first consider Ground No.2 raised in the application for additional ground along with Ground No. 1 raised in the Grounds of appeal which is the legal issue and goes to the root cause of the case. Asse…

M/S. Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…be looked into for adjudicating the same. These grounds are purely legal in nature. Therefore respectfully the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India report in 187 ITR 688, we admit the above ground.” ………………………………….. ………………………………… “Dividend Distribution Tax: We have already admitted this issue. First time this ground has been raised before us and Ld. AO had no occasion to examine this issue. In the interest of justice, we remit this issue to be decided in accordance with law.” 12.8 Further, the coordinate bench of…

Bharat Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3015/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Astha Chandrabharat Singh Vs. Ito S/O. Shri Mangtu, Ward – 2 Village Jonawas Rewari (Dungarwas), Distt. Rewari Haryana

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…can be raised at any time before the Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and M/s Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC). He therefore submitted that the additional grounds of appeal be admitted and appropriate order be passed in the interest of rendering substantial justice. 6. On the issue of the admissibility of additional ground of appeal, Learned DR strongly objected to the plea for admission of additional ground. He submitted that this ground was never…

Melongos India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…sions a similar power is available to the first appellate authority u/s.251 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the case laws relied on by the CIT(A) as under:- 1) Nirbheram Daluram (SC) 224 ITR 610 2) Jute Corporation of India (SC) 187 ITR 688 3) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (SC) 52 ITR 229 4) State of TN vs. Arulmurugan and Co. (Madras HC) 51 STC 381 5) Megatrends Inc. (Madras HC) TS-93-HC-2016 8. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the assessment order and noted that the above noted three disallowances i.e., disallo…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…endered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs Karnataka state co-op feberation Ltd. 128 Taxmann.com. Besides various Courts have taken similar view in the following cases: 1. NTPC Vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC), 2. Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT 181 ITR 688 (SC). 5-4 Coming to the export incentive schemes, it appears, that, the assesse has been given incentives under status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS), Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS) and Market Linked Focus Product Scheme (MLFPS), As regards SHIS, the incentive is given with the objective to promote investment in technology upgr…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…endered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs Karnataka state co-op feberation Ltd. 128 Taxmann.com. Besides various Courts have taken similar view in the following cases: 1. NTPC Vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC), 2. Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT 181 ITR 688 (SC). 5-4 Coming to the export incentive schemes, it appears, that, the assesse has been given incentives under status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS), Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS) and Market Linked Focus Product Scheme (MLFPS), As regards SHIS, the incentive is given with the objective to promote investment in technology upgr…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1667/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…endered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs Karnataka state co-op feberation Ltd. 128 Taxmann.com. Besides various Courts have taken similar view in the following cases: 1. NTPC Vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC), 2. Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT 181 ITR 688 (SC). 5-4 Coming to the export incentive schemes, it appears, that, the assesse has been given incentives under status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS), Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS) and Market Linked Focus Product Scheme (MLFPS), As regards SHIS, the incentive is given with the objective to promote investment in technology upgr…

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…5 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 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 ground raised stands admitted. 6. The Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee in the present appeal is a tax resident of Belgium, and amount received by the assessee from Hutch(Vodafone South) was towards provision of Internet Services. He submitted that the a…

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d for adjudicating the same. 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, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee. Page 3 of 6 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual and earned income from agriculture. For the assessment year 2019-20, return of income was filed on 31.10.2019 declaring loss of R…

M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure, Pune vs. DCIT Central Cir- 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1952/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2017-18) M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road, Range Hill Corner, Pune 411 007. Pan: Aabca-5452-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit Central Cir 2(3), 8Th Floor, Room No.803, Old Cgo Bldg. Pratistha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…contend that the additional grounds of appeal raising pure question of law where no new facts are required to be brought on record should be admitted. (i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT, 229 ITR 383(SC) (ii)Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688(SC) (iii)Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has 3 earned exempt income of Rs.1,05,27,666/- as share in the profits of the partnership firm. The assessee has claimed total expenditure…

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

…d for adjudicating the same. 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. Page 6 ITA Nos. 3088 & 3089/Bang/2018 Accordingly, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee for both years under consideration. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a captive service provider, rendering Software Development Services to its parent compan…

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

…d for adjudicating the same. 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. Page 6 ITA Nos. 3088 & 3089/Bang/2018 Accordingly, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee for both years under consideration. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a captive service provider, rendering Software Development Services to its parent compan…

Lions Umra Piplod Education Society, Surat vs. A.O. Circle-2, Exeption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 197/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Lions Umra Piplod Education Society, The Assessing Officer, Opp. Lake View Garden, C/O. Circle-2, Exemption, Vs. Shardayatan School, Piplod, Surat- Ahmedabad. 395007, Gujarat. Pan : Aaatl1289Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 143(1)

…No. 197/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Lions Umra Piplod Education Society  CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 19452 (Mad- HC)  CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3496 (Bom-HC)  Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT & Anr. (SC) 187 ITR 688 (SC)  Siva Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2020) 423 ITR 20 (Bom.)(HC)  CIT vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate 1965 AIR 325 SC: 1964 SCR (6) 85: 1964 TaxPub(DT) 0339(SC)  Bata India Ltd. vs DCIT 2019 Tax Pub(DT) 6365 (Kol-Trib)  Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. vs DCIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7623 (Ahd-Trib). 9. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supporte…

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

…r adjudicating the same. 9.1 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, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee. The Ld.CIT.DR submitted that this issue needs to be verified in detail. The Ld. Counsel submitted that outstanding receivables are only in respect of the provision of software development services by the assessee, and t…