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 371,971 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

Pangea Legal Database Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Singh-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…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…

Naozer Bejon Baldawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…is a settled law that legal ground can be raised by either of the parties at any stage, therefore, considering the settled proposition of law in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (229 ITR 383(SC), Jute Corporation of India Ltd., vs. CIT (187 ITR 688 (SC) we allow the present application preferred by the assessee for allowing to raise the additional ground of appeal and thus adjudicating the additional ground raised by the assessee on merits. M/s. Neozer Bejon Baldawala Additional Grounds of appeal:- 13. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order…

Vempati Srinivasa Subrahmanyam, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Vempati Srinivasa Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Subramanyam, Ward – 4(2)(1), Villa-04, Prestige Bougainvillea, Bangalore. No.59, Ecc Road, White Field, Bangalore – 560 06. Pan : Aclps 6643 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…cussed in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhinitha Foundation Ltd., (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has discussed the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India in 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Goetze India Ltd., (supra) and held that even if the claim made by the assessee does not form part of the original return or even the revised return; it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities (which includes both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal) by themselves or on re…

Marriott International Licensing Company Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, V.P. & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2479, 2480 & 2481/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08) In The Matter Of:-

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla &For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Section 144CSection 250

…m/2017 Marriott International Licensing Company BV, additional grounds as the same goes to the roots of the matter and in support of his arguments, Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vrs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). 5. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that the application dated 10.10.18 is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 6. After having heard the counsels on this application, we are of the view that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and all the necessary facts required for adjudication are already on…

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cr-7, Mumbai

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

ITA 5324/MUM/2013[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…same may kindly be admitted for adjudication as these were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions which are as under: 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)] 3 ITA No.5323/M/2013 & ors. Shri Bhupendra C. Dalal 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, opposed the admission of additional ground on the ground that same were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A…

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cr-7, Mumbai

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

ITA 5323/MUM/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…same may kindly be admitted for adjudication as these were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions which are as under: 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)] 3 ITA No.5323/M/2013 & ors. Shri Bhupendra C. Dalal 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, opposed the admission of additional ground on the ground that same were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A…

Jivraj P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4541/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4543/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4541/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Jivraj P. Surani ACIT-CC 15 & 16 बनाम/ B-2005, Chandanbala CHS Mumbai RR Thakkar Marg Vs. Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGUPS-7685-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3.C.O. No.6…

Suresh V. Kukadiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4543/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4541/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Jivraj P. Surani ACIT-CC 15 & 16 बनाम/ B-2005, Chandanbala CHS Mumbai RR Thakkar Marg Vs. Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGUPS-7685-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3.C.O. No.6…

ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tcg Facilities Management Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…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…

Tcg Facilities Management Services Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1631/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…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 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 4824/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…of appeal can be raised if the facts are on record, as in the instant case. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: Tata Motors Limited. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) • Jute Corporation Of I ndia Ltd. (187 ITR 688) (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (1991TR 351) (Bom FB) • Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom) • Ramco Cements Ltd (373 ITR 146) (Mad) • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) In view of the above, we request your Honour's to kindly consider our Additional Alternate Legal Ground of Appeal and decide on merits aft…

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. A CIT, Cir..-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 3334/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…of appeal can be raised if the facts are on record, as in the instant case. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: Tata Motors Limited. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) • Jute Corporation Of I ndia Ltd. (187 ITR 688) (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (1991TR 351) (Bom FB) • Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom) • Ramco Cements Ltd (373 ITR 146) (Mad) • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) In view of the above, we request your Honour's to kindly consider our Additional Alternate Legal Ground of Appeal and decide on merits aft…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…s the facts are on record, we admit this claim of the assessee made before us by applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. 1 Thus, this alternative argument of the assessee is allowed.” Moreover, Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of JCIT vs Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Del. ITAT) 32 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (Third Member), after considering the decision in the case of Goetze India (supra) observed: “I have carefully considered the questions, the orders of t…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5600/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…eedings, but before the appellate authorities also. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.); and ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v/s CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). 10. He submitted, in the assessment year 2006–07 also, though, the assessee had claimed similar deduction in the computation of income 6 Tata Motors Ltd. without having done so in the return of income, however, the Assessing Officer has allowed assessee’s claim. He submitted, the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of amortizatio…

Ramdev Chemicals P. Ltd, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6951/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Ramdev Chemicals P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-3, Palghar E-41, Midc Industrial Area Aayakar Bhavan, Bidco Road Boisar Dist. Palghar – 401 Palghar, Dist: Thane – 401 404 506 Pan/Gir No.Aabcr5210R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)

…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)] 3 M/s. Ramdev Chemicals P. Ltd., 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.” 2.2. This additional groun…

DCIT, C-I, Ludhiana vs. M/S Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana

ITA 800/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Vipin GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36

…cannot entertain claim of deduction otherwise than by filing of the revised return by the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited [1991; 187 ITR 688] in which it has been held 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. Support for this proposition was also sought from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim is not barred. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 has observed that the power of the Appellate Commissioner is coterminous with that of the Income Tax Officer and an appellate authority while hearing appeal against the order of the subordinate authority, has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the questions before it, subject to the restrictions o…

N- Serve Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6313/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…enalty notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and hence, the same is bad in law and invalid.” 3. For admission of above additional ground, the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and in CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 248. 4. A perusal of record reveals that the additional ground so filed by assessee is signed and stamped by nServe Software LLP and not by the appellant here. Therefore, the case was listed for hearing to clarify and remove the defect on 22.01.2019, but none attended on this date of hearing. 3…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…ITA No. 1915/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-2012 M/s. Emami Biotech Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1915/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,....................................Appellant Circle-11(1), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. Emami Biotech Limited,.................................................Respondent 687, Anandapur, E.M. Bypass Road, Kolkata-700 107 [PAN:AABCN 7953 M] Appearances by: Sh…

Chitralekha, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6849/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafc-1152-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…The Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR] pleaded for admission of additional grounds by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383] & Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT [187 ITR 688]. Although Ld. Departmental Representative for assessee agitated the admission of additional grounds, however, we find the additional grounds to be purely legal in nature which do not require appreciation of new facts and therefore, inclined to admit the same in terms of the cited judicial pronouncements. 3 Chitralekha Assessment Year :2010-11 1…