How many judgments cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT?

1,372 judgments on BharatTax cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 142(1).

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 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

block period section 158b section 119 section 158 section 127 income escaping assessment section 149 loose papers section 132a chief commissioner section 151 section 92ca

Judgments citing Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

…s before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. 4. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) : TC 7R.343, this Court, while dealing with the powers of the AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 219/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

DCIT-7(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd (Now Merged With Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4711/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, D.R

Section 73

…llowing decisions: 8 ITA No.4711/M/2019 & CO No.73/M/2011 M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (Now merged with Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd.) i)National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. 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)} iv) CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & shareholders {349 ITR 336(Bom)} 16. As regards merits of the case, it is submitted that the education cess paid/ payable on tax on total income is a deductible expenditure under the head ‘income from business and profession’ as the same is not disallowab…

Shri Jaiprkash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 160/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jaiprakash Khanchand The Assistant Aswani, Commissioner Of Income Vs Rmr & Co. (Chartered Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Accountants), 7006, World Trade Centre, 7Th Floor, Ring Road, Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaspa 3016 C Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 147Section 254(1)

…ed both additional grounds of appeal are on legal issue, and as per ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of national Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 and in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, the assessee prays to allow him to raise the above referred two additional grounds of appeal.” 3. At the outset of hearing, the ld.Authorised Representative (ld.AR) for the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal primarily raised by the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No.2237/A…

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4503/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. Acit 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, Dlf Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 Pan : Aasps 9459 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. ACIT 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, DLF Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 PAN : AASPS 9459 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 23.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 27.…

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4502/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Sm Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

ITA 402/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. S. M. Buildtech Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., H-23/9, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 24(1) Dlf Phase-1, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aaics 3283 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…it can be raised at any time before the Tribunal. In support of his 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 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC). He therefore submitted that the additional ground of appeal be admitted and appropriate order be passed in the interest of rendering substantial justice. On the issue of admissibility of additional ground, the Learned DR strongly objected to the plea for admission of additional ground. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and considering…

Cpa Global Support Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6815/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 274Section 92Section 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6815/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2011-12] CPA Global Support Services [I] Pvt Ltd. Vs. The I.T.O 1/3, 2nd Floor, Sir Gangaram Hospital Ward - 6(4) Marg, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AABCJ 1509 C [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 29.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Assessee by : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv. Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surenderpal, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAI…

Posco Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7715/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Posco Engineering & Vs Dcit, Construction Company, International Taxation, 5Th Floor, Park Centra Building, Civic Centre, Tower-A, Sector-30, Nh-8, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan : Aaecp2664A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) & 144C(13) Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

…referring to the additional grounds, submitted that these are purely legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be investigated. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 187 ITR 688 and various other decisions, he submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee may kindly be admitted and necessary relief be granted to the assessee. 17. The ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the additional grounds. 18. After hearing both the sides, we find that the additional ground raised by the assessee are purely legal in nat…

M/S. Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, I.T.A. No. 359/VIZ/2019 filed by the Revenue

ITA 553/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 194(3)(iii)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 196Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)

…case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 383] clearly held that the raising of additional legal ground during the appellate stage/proceedings is not barred by law. 10.5 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Another (187 ITR 688), also held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to permit the appellant to raise the additional ground. 10.6 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [(1964) 53 ITR 225)] has held that Appellate Assistant Commissioner also has co-terminus power with that of the Income- tax Officer and if that so…

The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company. Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, I.T.A. No. 359/VIZ/2019 filed by the Revenue

ITA 359/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 194(3)(iii)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 196Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…the additional ground of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated by your Honor. That in this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. National Thermal Pozver Corporation v, CIT (229 ITR 383)(SC) b. Jute Corporation of India Ltd v. CJT[187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court) L. Ahemdabad Elect rid I y Co. Ltd v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). d. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT 16(1), New Delhi [ITA No: 961/Del/20151 in interim order dated 31.10.2019 f. Grasim Industries Ltd (successor to the Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd) v. Addl. CIT (LTU/I.T.A 2525/Mum/2014 dated 20.12 2019. We find that this issue is dul…

Amd Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5308/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A

…to Rs. 7,59,662/- is a disallowable expenditure u/s 40A(ii) of the Act? 4. For admission of this additional ground, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has earned dividend income which he claimed as exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D squarely apply and, accordingly, computed disallow…

Guru Tegbahadur Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 26 (1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3947/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi/

Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…judgments can be interpreted in a manner to say that even if a claim otherwise impermissible under the scheme of the Act has to be admitted by way of additional ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 668 while dealing with the powers of AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restriction or limitation if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the present case even though the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 8 ITA NO. 39…

Raj Tarang Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3946/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi/

Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Smt Rama Bajaj, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 24Section 68

…ore the CIT(A), there is no reason for his not entertaining the claim, or directing the AO to allow appropriate relief, on facts being submitted to CIT(A) even if not on record. 2.9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) has dealt with this issue of admission of additional ground by first appellate authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 3 has analysed the powers of first appellate authority contained in section 251 of the act and has observed that- 10 Smt. Rama Bajaj, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur “The act does not contain any express provision debarring an…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5421/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M.Madhavi-CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

…gal ground of appeal and goes to the root of the matter and all the relevant facts to decide the ground are on records. In this respect, reliance is placed on following decisions: • Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited 66 ITR 710 (SC) • Jute Corporation of India 187 ITR 688 (SC) • National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT[1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB) In view of the above, the additional ground of appeal filed may be admitted and decided on merits. 10. It has been submitted that the order under section 154 passed on 30-11-2018 is barred by limitation as per secti…

M/S. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…Assessing Officer. It was contended that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue which was raised before him. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688. 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the case of the assessee that ex-gratia payment made to the employees is not a statutory payment, and hence, not liable for disallowance u/s 43B of the I.T.Act. This fact was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer vide the assessee’s letter dated 24.10.2016 alo…

M/S. Ravindra Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Udupi

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

ITA 1262/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniyan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. H Kabila, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ed into for adjudicating the claim of assessee. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (NTPC) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 187 ITR 688. He submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue upon admission Page 3 of 12 of the additional grounds raised. He thus prayed for its admission. 2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though opposed the admission of the additional grounds, could not controvert the submissions made by the Ld.Counsel. 2.3. We have perused the submissions adv…

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

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…is of material available on record. The omission to raise the aforesaid grounds of appeal is bonafide. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd vs CIT (229 ITR 383) and Jute Corporation of India vs CIT (187 ITR 688) and the discretion vested in your Honours under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the additional grounds of appeal is admitted for adjudicated on merits. 25. As far as the merits of the claim made in the additional ground is concerned, the issue requires examination by the AO when he gives effect to the order. Ends of…