Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

…) deals with the powers of the High Court in interfering with the findings of fact—and concurrent findings, at that by re- appreciating the evidence. The Supreme Court has held in the negative. The Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) has stated that the declaration of law is clear that the power of the appellate authority is co- 18 terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer, and if that is so, there appears to be no reason why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income-tax Officer. No excepti…

International Tractors Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) & Anr

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

…of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 238 ITR 268, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and held that the appellate forum could have entertained and decided 2021:DHC:1252-DB ITA 35/2019 Page 13 of 13 the said aspect. The decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable. In the said case the assessee had filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 1995-96 on 30.11.1995. Thereafter, on 12…

M/S Super Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Super Industries, Vs Ito, Prop. S. Jagjit Singh, Ward-33(3), L/H Shri Joginder Singh, New Delhi. N.7, Gali No.9, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aasps8033M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Appearance. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.118/Del/2017, Order Dated 16Th February, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Proprietor Of M/S Super Industries. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2006 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,89,640/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Obtained That The Assessee Indulged In Bogus Purchases/Accommodation Entries Provided By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet & Shri Vaibhav Jain. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened After Recording Reasons As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act. Notice U/S 148 Dated 28Th March, 2013 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ao, Thereafter, Issued Statutory Notices. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Observing That The Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchase Of Rs.13,03,692/- From Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co. & Shree Shyam Trading Co., Which Are Owned By The Persons Named Earlier, Made Addition Of Rs.13,03,692/- U/S 69C Of The It Act.

…g the case u/s 147 is totally wrong and is liable to be quashed. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 187 ITR 688, submitted that this is a legal ground and all necessary facts are available on record and no fresh facts are required to be investigated. He accordingly submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee should be admitted. 6. The ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds. 7. After hearing the rival arguments made by bot…

M/S. Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

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

…nal ground, submitted that this is purely a legal ground and no new facts are required to be investigated. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383, 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 should be admitted. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the admission of the additional ground so raised by the assessee. She submitted that this additional ground has been raised by the assessee after a lapse of more than five years from fi…

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

…cribed time limit and as such, consequent assessment order is liable to be annulled; that additional ground can be raised at any stage of proceedings and relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. 229 ITR 383. 8 ITA No.2381/Del./2014 10. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the application for additional ground on the grounds inter alia that application is not maintainable having been filed after undue delay; that no such plea has been taken by the taxpayer before the low…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

…. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

…. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt.…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

…. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

…. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt.…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

…ment proceedings submitted that if the claim is genuine the same can be admitted even without filing revised return of income and for this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and National Thermal Power Company Ltd vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). On the issue of claim on merits, he submitted that assessee is a leading company engaged in the business of manufacturing of switch gears, wires, electrical fans, CFL, electric motors and other electrical goods at various units and all the units are interdependent. He submitted…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

…ment proceedings submitted that if the claim is genuine the same can be admitted even without filing revised return of income and for this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and National Thermal Power Company Ltd vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). On the issue of claim on merits, he submitted that assessee is a leading company engaged in the business of manufacturing of switch gears, wires, electrical fans, CFL, electric motors and other electrical goods at various units and all the units are interdependent. He submitted…