Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

Sumita Shreegopal Barasia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble G. Manjunatha, Ajm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

…new evidence is required to be brought on record. Even otherwise, this ground goes to the roots of the case, therefore keeping in view the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vrs CIT 229 ITR 383, Jute Corporation of India Vrs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Ltd. Vrs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB), we allow the 5 I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 SunitaShreegopalBarasia application dated 26.07.19 and admit the additional grounds mentioned above for adjudicating on merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from house property and oth…

Nilkant Mangesh Rege, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Nilkant Mangesh Rege The Asst. Commissioner Of 201, Amidhaval Jeevanvikas Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle Marg Koldongri Andheri (E) 24(3), 3Rd Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400 057 Chamber Lal Bag, Mumbai Pan No. Andr4634H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.C. Saboo, Ar Revenueby : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

…quashed.” 3. We find that the above additional ground filed by the assessee is inextricably linked with the original grounds of appeal filed. In NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the decision in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) observed at page 387 as under : "The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) takes too narrow view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribu…

Hemant G. Bohra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1) (Erstwhile-19(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Hemant G. Bohra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Shop No.15, 52/52A, Income Tax – 19(1) Room No.203, 2Nd Floor Nanubhai Desai Road Islampura Street Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 004 Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Adnpb4773D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…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, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. 6 Shri Hemant G. Bohra 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 provi…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…o raise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims not made in the return filed by it. [Para 10] From a consideration of decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 , it is clear that an assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

…sing reassessment order and goes to the root of the matter and may be admitted/. The ld counsel relied on the following decisions in defense of his arguments: 1. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (229 ITR 386 SC) 2. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) The Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, o…

Shumbhlaxmi Dyetex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). Thus Assessee Request To Raise This Legal Point As Additional Ground.

…nd will not require investigation into any new or fresh facts. 5. Therefore, while keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC), Ahemdabad Electrical Vrs. CIT 199 ITR 351, wherein it has been held that legal grounds, which goes to the roots of the case, can be raised and allowed at any time /stage. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles in mind, we allow the assessee to raise the additional grounds. Hence, application dated 19th June 2019 is allowed and the…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhessar Ports Ltd. Acit-6(2)(2), Essar House, 11, Keshavrao Room No. 563 (C), Vs. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, Pan: Aaace8391D Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala Ar’S Respondent By : Shri Mukundraj Chate Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…ditional grounds are purely question of law, which was omitted due to inadvertent error. In support of its contention the assessee has relied on the case law in National Thermal Power Corporation Vs CIT (229 ITR 383SC), Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT (187 ITR 688 SC) 4 ITA No. 4444 Mum 2017-Essar Ports Ltd. and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Vs CIT (199 ITR 351 Bom). The ld AR for the assessee made his submissions on the lines of the contents of the application. On the contrary the ld. DR for the revenue has not strongly opposed the submissions of the assessee. Considering the facts that the assessee has r…

First Flight Couriers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1324/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. First Flight Couriers Ltd. Dcit-12(2)(1) बनाम Room No.223, 2Nd Floor नाम नाम/ नाम G-1001/02, Lotus Corporate Park Graham Firth Steel Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0841-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2439/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-12(2)(1) M/S. First Flight Couriers Ltd. बनाम Room No.223, 2Nd Floor नाम/ नाम नाम G-1001/02, Lotus Corporate Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Graham Firth Steel Compound Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0841-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

…Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us by way of Ground No.1. 3.2 Keeping in view the fact that assessee’s correct income was to be computed and keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT [187 ITR 688], we admit the assessee’s claim and restore the issue back to the file of Ld. AO to examine the same. The Ld. AO is directed to allow the same after verifying that the aforesaid contributions / payments were deposited before due date of filing of return of income and secondly, the deduction of the same was not claimed by the assessee in any other…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pangea3 Legal Database P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1.4 The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal on 26/07/2017 and pleaded for admission of the same in terms of decision 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 find that these grounds are only to re-emphasize the functional dissimilarity of two comparable entities i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd. & eClerx Services Ltd. and do not require appreciation of any new facts. Therefore, the same are taken on record as ground nos. 11 & 12. Theses grounds read as under: - GROUND NO. 11: The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erre…