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

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1468/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…of allowing deduction in respect of subsidy received by the appellant from. The State Government by way of sales tax remission. In view of the judicial decisions and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT (187 ITR 688) & National Thermal Power Co. Ltd Vs CIT (229 ITR 383) and Calcutta, Bombay & Delhi High Courts in Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO (262 CTR 633), CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd, (252 CTR 151), CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (306 ITR 42) and also ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. Ramesh Chandra Kedia (ITA No. 2072/Kol/2007) d…

Mrs. Saira Banu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on additional grounds raised

ITA 691/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 Mrs. Saira Banu, The Deputy # N-42, 9Th “B” Main, Commissioner Of Lic Quarters, Income Tax, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Circle – 7 [2], Bangalore – 560 075. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aebpb3345J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31.08.2020 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2007-08 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Is Bad In Law In So Far As The Issues For Which The A.O. Initiated & Completed The Assessment Proceedings On The Basis Of The Details & Information Collected By Him Were Not Put To The Appellant & Thus, The Order Of Assessment Passed Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Thus, The Same Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 251

…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 grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised stands admitted. Page 4 of 7 As the issue raised by the assessee in the additional grounds goes to the root cause of assessment, we are inclined to consider this ground first. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The Ld.AR submitted th…

Patel & Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Patel & Associates, Dcit Cc-7(3), Office No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Patel Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Bhuvan, 29 Vijay Wad, Dr Mumbai-400020. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chirasazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aanfm 8145 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. AparnaSivakumar, AR
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Patel & Associates, DCIT CC-7(3), Office No. 1, 2nd floor, Patel Vs. AayakarBhavan, Bhuvan, 29 Vijay Wad, DR Mumbai-400020. Nagindas N Shah Lane ChiraSazar, Mumbai-400 002. PAN No. AANFM 8145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. AparnaSivakumar, AR : Revenue by Mr. S.G. Menon, DR : Date of Hearing 09/02/2022 : Date of 16/03/2022 pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated…

Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 317/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

….2011-12 have came largely through banking channel i.e. A/c No.16771530000018 of HDFC Sanand, therefore, it was incumbent upon the undersigned to inquire about entries in the Sanand, HDFC Bank account. The ratio in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. - 187 ITR 688 is applied. Hence the appellant was specifically asked to explain the issue vide letter dated 05.04.2017 which is reproduced as under: "Please refer to appellate hearing dated 24.01.2017 wherein the source of incoming funds dated 09.02.2010, 18.02.2010, 08.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 in HDFC bank, Sanand account No. 16771530000018 of Shri Ramsangbhai…

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

…ering 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 Page 5 IT(TP)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we are admitting the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly the additional ground raised by assessee stands admitted. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Technology Ltd., Cayman Island, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Co…

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., [formerly known as The Additional American Power Commissioner of Conversion (India) Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.] LTU, 187/3 & 188/3, Jigani, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 106. PAN: AACCA6398Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT DR (OSD) Date of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 ORDER PER BE…

Jubilant Motorworks P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 7943/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250(5)

…ground cannot be entertained as it does not result in any grievance in the assessment order. 5. In our considered opinion, Section 250(5) of the I.T. Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688, the power of the appellate authority is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and there is no fetter on the power of the appellate authority to admit an additional ground and allow the claim even if the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer. 6. In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] r.w.s 250…

Jubilant Motorworks P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5879/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250(5)

…ground cannot be entertained as it does not result in any grievance in the assessment order. 5. In our considered opinion, Section 250(5) of the I.T. Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688, the power of the appellate authority is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and there is no fetter on the power of the appellate authority to admit an additional ground and allow the claim even if the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer. 6. In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] r.w.s 250…

Jubilant Motorworks P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5878/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250(5)

…ground cannot be entertained as it does not result in any grievance in the assessment order. 5. In our considered opinion, Section 250(5) of the I.T. Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688, the power of the appellate authority is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and there is no fetter on the power of the appellate authority to admit an additional ground and allow the claim even if the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer. 6. In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] r.w.s 250…

DCIT, Trivandrum vs. Brahmos Aerospace( Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

…e in the return filed by it. It is necessary for us to refer to some of these decisions only to deal with two submissions on behalf of the department. The first is with respect to an observation of the Supreme Court in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v . CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1. 11. (A) In Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal Raw Jute Taxation…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

Tata Communications Limited(Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT Range - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1657/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6781/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

Tata Communication Ltd. (Formerly Known As Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T.RG.1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7514/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

…appeal, therefore, the legal ground raised as additional ground should be admitted. To support his contention for admission of additional legal ground, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (ii)Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs.ACIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar legal ground was raised in assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 the Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/2017 admitted the additional grou…

The ACIT, (E) Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Rai University, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 553/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR &
Section 11Section 12A

…ee, the CIT(A) should consider the necessary evidence in exercise of power u/s. 250(4) even if the case of the assessee does not fall within the four corners of the circumstances enumerated in rule 46A(1)." In such circumstances, and as per ratio laid down at 187 ITR 688 (SC) in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., I am constrained to admit the contention raised u/s.10(23C)(vi) with the limitation that the adverse findings by the AO while making earlier the assessment has to be considered as per directions contained in the order of CIT(Exemptions) u/s. 10(23C)(vi). There is a clarion call from the highest…

Rai University, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, (E) Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR &
Section 11Section 12A

…ee, the CIT(A) should consider the necessary evidence in exercise of power u/s. 250(4) even if the case of the assessee does not fall within the four corners of the circumstances enumerated in rule 46A(1)." In such circumstances, and as per ratio laid down at 187 ITR 688 (SC) in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., I am constrained to admit the contention raised u/s.10(23C)(vi) with the limitation that the adverse findings by the AO while making earlier the assessment has to be considered as per directions contained in the order of CIT(Exemptions) u/s. 10(23C)(vi). There is a clarion call from the highest…

M/S. Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

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

…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 ground raised by assessee. The Ld.AR in respect of the additional ground raised, submitted that during the year under consideration, the provision made towards Audit fees was reversed in the subsequent year and that the disallowance is uncalled fo…

M/S Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

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

…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 ground raised by assessee. The Ld.AR in respect of the additional ground raised, submitted that during the year under consideration, the provision made towards Audit fees was reversed in the subsequent year and that the disallowance is uncalled fo…