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

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ile an appeal/cross- objections 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. 6. In the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, 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 authority is ve…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

…11,1112/Pn/2017 Dt.24.07.2017) (Pune Tribunal) viii) ITC Ltd. (ITA No.685/Kol/2014 dt.27.11.2018) (Kol. Tribunal). . Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments - a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) b) Jute Corportion of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688)(SC) c) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351)(Bom FB) d) M/s. WheelsIndia Ltd. (ITA No.251/Mds/2010 dt.14.03.2014) (Mad.) e) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs.DCIT (ITAT, Special Bench, ITA No.5018/Mum/2010 dt.21.05.2012) In the above cases, the Ld. AR submitted that since there is no question of investigation of fresh facts, the addit…

Thimmareddy Krishnareddy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2650/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Anand Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

…ssee u/s. 54B of the Act, though there was no revised return filed by the assessee. In our opinion, at this stage it is proper to go through certain case laws on this issue:- 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 was considering the following facts:- 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, 1941, as it entertained a belief that it was not liable to pay purchase tax under that Act. Subsequently, the appellant…

Palaniappan Sockalingam, Chikmagalur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 612/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramsubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, D.R
Section 90

…to the above said additional grounds are available on record. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. National Thermal Power Corporation (229 ITR 383) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs. CIT (187 ITR 688), the assessee prays for admission of the above said additional grounds. 4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has raised a legal issue in first additional ground (numbered as ground no.4). In the second additional ground (numbered as ground no.5), the assessee seeks to claim set off of brought forward losses as…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai vs. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6213/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…e assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. In this regard, the appellant relies upon the following landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)] iv. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 7. In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the enclosed additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated upon by your honour.” 5. The assessee has raised the following additional ground in…

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6092/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…e assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. In this regard, the appellant relies upon the following landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB)] iv. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 7. In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the enclosed additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated upon by your honour.” 5. The assessee has raised the following additional ground in…

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the order of the

ITA/404/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.404 OF 2016 c/w I.T.A. NO.468/2016 I.T.A.NO.404/2016 BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR - FINANCE MR. C.V. RAMANA RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1)(2) (ERSTWHILE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11) ROOM NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAM…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd

In the result, the order of the

ITA/468/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.404 OF 2016 c/w I.T.A. NO.468/2016 I.T.A.NO.404/2016 BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR - FINANCE MR. C.V. RAMANA RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1)(2) (ERSTWHILE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11) ROOM NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAM…

M/S. Jindal World Wide Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabadq

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

ITA 2316/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…In what manner and to what extent, a ground, a legal contention or a fresh claim can be made at an appellate stage are vexed questions and have occupied the minds of the Courts in numerous occasions. 31. In the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 the Supreme Court noted with approval observation of the Court in the case of CIT v Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 to the effect that "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, has plenary powers in disposing of appeal. The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer He can do what the Income-tax Officer…

M/S Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

…amined or brought on record and being a legal ground, the same may kindly be admitted for adjudication. In support, the reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 38 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 688. 7. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR opposed the prayer of the assessee company for admitting the additional ground of appeal. It was submitted that the assessee had ample opportunity to raise the ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, having failed to take said ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) or advancing any contentions in this behal…

Jajoo Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt (President) & Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 1142/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Jajoo Enterprises Ltd. DCIT, Central Vs. Shop No. 3, Building Circle 4(3) 3/C, Jai Hind Estate 19th Floor Dr.A.M. Road Air India Building Bhuleshwar Nariman Point Kalbadevi Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. PAN : AAACJ9939L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjape Department by Shri Samantha Nullamudi Date of Hearing 21.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Justice P.P. Bhatt (President):- Th…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 12 (1)

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

ITA 4261/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Singh, CIT, DR

…3. After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that no fresh facts are required to be investigated, therefore, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688, the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted. 4. Grounds of appeal Nos.1-5 of the assessee as well as the additional ground relate to the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing the non-compete fee of Rs.48,34,13,706/-. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find, the assessee is a private limited company…

Bnp Paribas India Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani , ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 234C

…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, 19…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…and Page 6 of 95 adjudicate on merits. The assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of National thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 229 ITR 383 and also the decision of June Corporation of India versus CIT 187 ITR 688. Along with the additional ground, the assessee submitted that they chart wherein it is stated that assessee has filed the return of income on 29/11/2012 and the draft assessment order thereon was passed on 30 March 2016. The DRP issued its direction on 22 November 2016 and the due date for passing final assessment order u/s 153 (1) read with Sec…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…and Page 6 of 95 adjudicate on merits. The assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of National thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 229 ITR 383 and also the decision of June Corporation of India versus CIT 187 ITR 688. Along with the additional ground, the assessee submitted that they chart wherein it is stated that assessee has filed the return of income on 29/11/2012 and the draft assessment order thereon was passed on 30 March 2016. The DRP issued its direction on 22 November 2016 and the due date for passing final assessment order u/s 153 (1) read with Sec…

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…and Page 6 of 95 adjudicate on merits. The assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of National thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 229 ITR 383 and also the decision of June Corporation of India versus CIT 187 ITR 688. Along with the additional ground, the assessee submitted that they chart wherein it is stated that assessee has filed the return of income on 29/11/2012 and the draft assessment order thereon was passed on 30 March 2016. The DRP issued its direction on 22 November 2016 and the due date for passing final assessment order u/s 153 (1) read with Sec…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7650/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…merely a legal ground which goes to the root of the matter and do not require appreciation of new facts, keeping in view the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V/s CIT [229 ITR 383] & Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [187 ITR 688], we admit the additional ground and proceed to adjudicate the appeal as argued before us. 2.3 Facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in Production of TV serials and films was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5580/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…merely a legal ground which goes to the root of the matter and do not require appreciation of new facts, keeping in view the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V/s CIT [229 ITR 383] & Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [187 ITR 688], we admit the additional ground and proceed to adjudicate the appeal as argued before us. 2.3 Facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in Production of TV serials and films was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7645/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…merely a legal ground which goes to the root of the matter and do not require appreciation of new facts, keeping in view the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V/s CIT [229 ITR 383] & Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [187 ITR 688], we admit the additional ground and proceed to adjudicate the appeal as argued before us. 2.3 Facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in Production of TV serials and films was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03…

M/S. Deluxe Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…o the original ground 6 already raised and so deserves to be admitted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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), Moreover, it is imperative that the instant ground be raised as it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. 4 In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that, the assessee may be permitted to raise, urge, and amend the ground no.1 as an additional ground of appeal as submitted above…