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

Kec International Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…s income of the assessee. The Ld. AR sought admission of the same by us, inter-alia, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Assessment Year :2012-13 Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (229 ITR 383); Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (187 ITR 688) & the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admiss…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 115/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…s income of the assessee. The Ld. AR sought admission of the same by us, inter-alia, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Assessment Year :2012-13 Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (229 ITR 383); Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT (187 ITR 688) & the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admiss…

M/S Issl Cpg Bpo Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2795/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate &

…olding that there is nothing on record to show how the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from raising such a claim before the AO. In my opinion, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688 (SC), the appellate authority has the power which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it, subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provision. So in the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authorities are vested with all the plenary powers which an original authority…

M/S. Sarvodaya Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Brahmavar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Ward- 2, Udupi

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

ITA 372/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am I.T.A. No.372/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sarvodaya Credit Co-Operative Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Society Ltd., Income-Tax(Osd), Ward-2, Car Street, Barkur, Udupi. Brahmavar-576 210. [Pan:Aaeas 9576Q]

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…unal, specific grounds are being raised. Hence, it was prayed to admit the additional grounds and decide them on merits. The appellant relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: a. CIT vs. NTPVC (229 ITR 383) b. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT(187 ITR 688) 4. The assessee has raised the additional grounds due to inadvertences and requested the Tribunal to admit the above additional grounds. 5. The Ld. DR objected to the admission of the additional grounds. I.T.A. No.372/Bang/2020 6. I have heard both the parties on these issues. The assessee has bonafide reasons in raising the additional grounds…

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2181/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodsiemens Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest To Siemens Power Income Tax- 8(2)(1), Engineering Private Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uodhal Raj Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 92C(3)

…w and have a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that same was not raised before the lower authorities. Apart from that, we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (1991) 187 ITR 688 ITA No.2181/Mum/2017 A.Y.2012-13 5 Siemens Limited Vs. DCIT-8(2)(1) (SC), had held, that in the absence of any statutory provision the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. As regards the objection of the revenue that now when the assessee had participated in the assess…

M/S. Trident Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2234/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2234/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2234/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Trident Microsystems The Dy. Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #2924, Third Floor, 14th Circle-7(1)(1), Cross, K.R Road, Vs. Bengaluru. BSK II Stage, Bengaluru-560 070. PAN : AADCN 1384L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, C.A Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 22-06-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14-08-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pr…

Mrs. Suvina Krupal, Somwarpet vs. ITO, Madikeri

In the result appeal stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 337/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri L Barath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.337/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s CoreOne Technologies The Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, (formerly known as M/s Bangalore. CAPCO IT Services India Pvt. Vs. Ltd) Mobius Tower, 2nd Floor, SJRiPark, EPIP Zone I, Whitefiled, Bangalore-560 066. PAN : AACCC 1734 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Income-tax Officer, M/s CoreOne Technologies Ward-2(1)(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore…

Classic Stripes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Classic Stripes Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan Astarc House, 76/79, Mumbai Makwana Lane, Takpada Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc5076F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ade :- "A long line of authorities establish clearly that an assessee is entitled toraise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims not made in the return filed by it. [Para 10] In Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688 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 was assessed to purchase tax and the order of assessment w…

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6078/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Tower-B, Windsor It Park, Circle – 24(1), A-1, Sector-125 New Delhi Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aahcs 8978 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Ramit Katiyal, Advocate Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Acit), Circle 24(1), New Delhi Pursuant To The Directions Of Drp, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income-Tax Act Dated 22.01.2015 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2011-12 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…in your Honours under Rule 11 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT : 229 ITR 383 and also the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT : 187 ITR 688. The applicant trust that the request shall be acceded to. An opportunity of being heard is prayed for.” 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that he does not wish to press additional grounds raised by the assessee. In Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2011-12 7 view of the aforesaid submission of Ld AR, the additional ground…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…d. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of viz. (i) National Thermal Power Corporation Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC); and (ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). Also support was drawn by him from the judgment of the ‗full bench‘ of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) objected to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal. 3. We have heard the…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…d. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of viz. (i) National Thermal Power Corporation Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC); and (ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). Also support was drawn by him from the judgment of the ‗full bench‘ of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) objected to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal. 3. We have heard the…

Satyam Computer Services Ld, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7319/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Ravish Sood.

For Appellant: Shri. J.D. Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43B

…he basis of the available on record, therefore, the same may be admitted. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of viz. (i). Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC); (ii). New India Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 1010 (Guj); and (iii). Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad). Relying on the aforesaid judgments, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers, which the s…

Smt. Praveen Sewak Nayyar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

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

ITA 977/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “एक सद"य” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.977/PUN/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Parveen Sewak Nayyar, ………. अपीलाथ" / 801-802, A2A, Manikchand Malabar Hills, Appellant Lullanagar, Pune – 411040. PAN : ABWPN8238Q. बनाम v/s The Income Tax Officer, ………. ""यथ" / Ward – 5(1), Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri M. Hari Krishan. Revenue by : Shri Prashant Mahajan. : 23.06.2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncemen…

Sugota Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…nt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirbheram Daluram (224 ITR 610) for the propositions that powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the ITO as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. 5. He distinguished the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sardari Lal & Co.(supra). The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kashi Nath Candiwala (144 Taxman 840) and rejected the contention of the assessee. He enhanced the assessment by disallowing the claim of salary p…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…of the first appeal. The proposition of law on the issue of admission of additional or new grounds by first appellate authority was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) (187 ITR 688) (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) held that the same will apply to appeal before Tribunal Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohd. Ayyub & Sons Agency (1992) 197 ITR 637 (All) has held that the power of the Tribunal to permit any party to the appeal to raise the…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…of the first appeal. The proposition of law on the issue of admission of additional or new grounds by first appellate authority was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) (187 ITR 688) (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) held that the same will apply to appeal before Tribunal Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohd. Ayyub & Sons Agency (1992) 197 ITR 637 (All) has held that the power of the Tribunal to permit any party to the appeal to raise the…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…of the first appeal. The proposition of law on the issue of admission of additional or new grounds by first appellate authority was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) (187 ITR 688) (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) held that the same will apply to appeal before Tribunal Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohd. Ayyub & Sons Agency (1992) 197 ITR 637 (All) has held that the power of the Tribunal to permit any party to the appeal to raise the…

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 46/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Formerly Keane Worldzen India Pvt. Ltd.), Ward-5(2), Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, New Delhi. Sushant Lok, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacw3622M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate & Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…llenged the selection of certain comparables by the TPO. 12. Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 and the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 187 ITR 688, he submitted that these additional grounds go to the root of the matter and no fresh facts are required to be investigated, therefore, these additional grounds should be admitted for adjudication. 13. The ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the admission of the additional grounds filed by the assessee. 14. After hearing both the sides and consi…

Nxp India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2861/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…unal. The Petitioner states and submits that the issues raised in the additional ground above arise out of the order of the lower authorities. Reliance is based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. C.I.T. (187 ITR 688) and National Thermal Power Corporation vs. C.I.T. (229 ITR 383) as well as the full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (199 ITR 351). In the above circumstances the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to; 7 IT(T)A Nos.692 & 2861/Bang/2017 M/s.NXP India Private Limited. (…

M/S Ipass India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2533/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2533/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013 – 14

For Appellant: Shri Chavalli Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C

…till it was entitled to point out to Tribunal that said enterprise had wrongly been taken as a comparable.” 10.4. In lieu of the above, respectfully following the ratio is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jute Corporation India vs CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, and DCIT vs Quark Systems (supra), we admit additional ground raised by assessee. Accordingly Additional ground no.11 raised by assessee stands admitted. 11. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sine qua non to understand functions performed, assets owned and…