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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad vs. R P Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 26/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Biswal Narahari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…o wrong computation of total income which is apparent from the assessment order. It is submitted that this ground of appeal may be admitted u/s 250(5) of the IT Act, 1961 in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Jute corporation of India Vs CIT 187 ITR 688 and cit vs Nirbheram Dalurarn (224 ITR 610) 19.3 As per assessment order the AO has computed total income by treating Rs.24,44,25,076/ as “income from other sources” out of total business receipt of Rs.24,90,15,570/ as per accounts. In other words the AO has taken total business receipts to be Rs.45,90,494/. The AO is, therefore, required to reco…

Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur vs. Shri Raja Vikram, Bastar

ITA 347/RPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 347/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Dist. Bastar (C.G) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Raja Vikram P/O. M/S. Vikas Associate ( Engineers), Jeypore Road, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G) Pan : Acopr6013N ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…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 Corporation of India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax. 11(A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, 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 Act, 1…

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

…ounds are purely legal in nature. Therefore respectfully the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT Page 10 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 reported in 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR 688, we admit the above ground. Accordingly the application dated 18/11/2021 stands allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is in the business of manufacture of development of software, dealing in automotive components, developing mechanical and electronic designs, translations, documentation etc. It filed its return of income…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

…ounds are purely legal in nature. Therefore respectfully the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT Page 10 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 reported in 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR 688, we admit the above ground. Accordingly the application dated 18/11/2021 stands allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is in the business of manufacture of development of software, dealing in automotive components, developing mechanical and electronic designs, translations, documentation etc. It filed its return of income…

Dy CIT - CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

ITA 634/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 48

…root of the matter and no fresh facts are required to be examined thereon. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC). 5.7. From the perusal of the entire assessment order in respect of making disallowance u/s.14A of the Act and denial of set off of brought forward long term capital loss with long term capital gain, the ld. AO had not made any reference to any seized material found during the course of search to justify the said addition. Admittedly, the a…

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)

…order of the TPO. Therefore, it is prayed that these grounds may be admitted for adjudication in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) IT(TP)A No.397/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 21 Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Born) FB) 3. We have heard both the parties on the admission of additional grounds and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), the additional grounds are admitted for adjudicat…

M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…te consideration, admission and adjudication on merits in the larger interests of justice. In respect of above proposition, we wish to rely on the following decisions:  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC)  Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC)  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) FB) We pray accordingly.” 3. The assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional ground has been filed dated 16.03.2021 stating that these grounds being legal in nature goes to the root of the matter of jurisdiction and required to be adjudicated to determine the correct liability…

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…und is purely legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be investigated. Referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs., CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India vs., CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), he submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted for adjudication. 4 ITA.No.4771/Del./2018 Geodis Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon. 4. After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional ground raised by the assessee being purely legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be i…

Accenture Solutions P. Ltd (Asol)(As A Successor to Accenture Services Private Limited (Aspl) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date of 1 December 2016, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 530/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 92C

…g that on the jurisdictional issue, he would like to press ground 17 first. For the admission of the above ground, he relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC); Jute Corporation of India 187 ITR 688 (SC) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd 199 ITR 351 (Bom). He further stated that the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, is a jurisdictional issue and no further facts are required to be investigated; therefore, additional grounds may be admit…

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Swiss Reshared Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 438/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee 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 Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 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. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (previously known as Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner of 2nd to 5th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. PAN: AAECS8786L APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11…

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 335/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ed to note that the decisions of the Supreme Court governs the case on hand which states that the relief can be granted to the assessee if all the details are on record even though the assessee had not made any specific claim for the same per Jute Corporation 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Taparia Tools Ltd 372 ITR 605 (SC).” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is carrying on business of manufacturer of modular furniture and interior decoration filed its return of income for assessment year 20012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring Nil total income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of…

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 334/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ed to note that the decisions of the Supreme Court governs the case on hand which states that the relief can be granted to the assessee if all the details are on record even though the assessee had not made any specific claim for the same per Jute Corporation 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Taparia Tools Ltd 372 ITR 605 (SC).” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is carrying on business of manufacturer of modular furniture and interior decoration filed its return of income for assessment year 20012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring Nil total income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 302/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ed to note that the decisions of the Supreme Court governs the case on hand which states that the relief can be granted to the assessee if all the details are on record even though the assessee had not made any specific claim for the same per Jute Corporation 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Taparia Tools Ltd 372 ITR 605 (SC).” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is carrying on business of manufacturer of modular furniture and interior decoration filed its return of income for assessment year 20012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring Nil total income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…e 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 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 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. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee is an individual deriving income from manufacturing of precision turned machine components and filed his return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 15/10/2009 d…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…e 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 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 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. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee is an individual deriving income from manufacturing of precision turned machine components and filed his return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 15/10/2009 d…

M/S. Sling Media Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 197/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Hari Prasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80Section 80G

…adjudicating the same. 5.4.1 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. Page 7 of 13 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5.5 Admittedly, the computes installed by the assessee are used for development of software. We have referred to the term ‘plant and machinery’ as appearing in section 32(1)(iia…

Sahrudaya Health Care (Karimnagar) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 662/HYD/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 265Section 43BSection 44A

…f filing of ROI for the subject AY and the treatment was righteously given effect in the ROI for the subsequent year i.e. 2019-20. In support, the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. Of India Vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1988] 229 ITR.” 4.2 The CIT(A) dismissed the additional ground raised by the assessee by holding that the belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI to the extent of Rs. 14,74,969/- is subject to tax u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assess…

Sahrudaya Health Care (Karimnagar) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 661/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 265Section 43BSection 44A

…f filing of ROI for the subject AY and the treatment was righteously given effect in the ROI for the subsequent year i.e. 2019-20. In support, the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. Of India Vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1988] 229 ITR.” 4.2 The CIT(A) dismissed the additional ground raised by the assessee by holding that the belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI to the extent of Rs. 14,74,969/- is subject to tax u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assess…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Chhotaray a/w
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ssary that the deduction be allowed only if a revised return of income is filed. In fact, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while concluding as hereinabove had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, viz. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB); and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). Also, as rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) had after, inter alia, drawi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…nal ground raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection is purely legal in nature. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT, reported in (1998) (229 ITR 383) (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC), he submitted that the additional ground being purely legal in nature and all the material facts are already available on record, therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection should be admitted for adjudication. 20. The Ld. DR objected to the admission of the additional ground. 21. After hearing both the…