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.

How many judgments cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT?

1,372 judgments on BharatTax cite Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 142(1).

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688)

ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…f any statutory provision to the contrary, the Ld. CIT(A) is vested with the plenary power to admit and adjudicate claims of the appellant, by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) reported in 187 ITR 688. e. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profit for the captive undertakings in Karnataka and Bangalore may be recomputed by considering the price of the power generated by the appellant at the average annual landed cost of electricity purchased by the assessee from the respective SEBs. f. That the Assessing Officer erred in facts…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…f any statutory provision to the contrary, the Ld. CIT(A) is vested with the plenary power to admit and adjudicate claims of the appellant, by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) reported in 187 ITR 688. e. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profit for the captive undertakings in Karnataka and Bangalore may be recomputed by considering the price of the power generated by the appellant at the average annual landed cost of electricity purchased by the assessee from the respective SEBs. f. That the Assessing Officer erred in facts…

Percy M. Batliwalla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7195/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7195/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ing claim of exemption by the assessee u/s. 54F and thereafter learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated the same on merits in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmadabad Electricity Company Ltd. v CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351(Bom.) We , under these circumstances , are of considered view that this ground of claim of exemption u/s 54F raised by the assessee for the first time before learned CIT(A) need to be admitted and we direct admission of this ground raised…

ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Rabindra Nath Sikdar, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1097/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 28Section 44A

…f loss by the Commissioner (Appeals) after looking into the audited accounts as well as the past records himself, it has been held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 and reiterated in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 that the AAC has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the ITO. He could do what the ITO could do and also direct him to do what he had failed to do in view of these decisions, it was to beheld that in disposing of an appeal from an assessment order under section 144, the first appellate autho…

Deepak L. Kulpe, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4859/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4859/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur RFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…cation dated 10/1/18 and by keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC versus CIT 229 3 I.T.A. No. 4859/Mum/2017 Deepak L. Kulpe ITR 383 and also other judgements such as Jute Corporation of India Ltd versus CIT 187 ITR 688 Supreme Court and Ahmedabad electricity company Ltd versus CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bombay), we are of the considered view that the ground which the assessee now wants to raise before us by way of additional ground is legal in nature and hence it can be raised at any point of time therefore ,we allow the assessee to raise this ground by way of additional…

M/S. Panduranganagar Residents Welfare Association, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed subject to observations made in the order

ITA 761/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…fresh investigation into Page 3 of 4 facts apart from looking into the material already on record. Principles for admission of additional grounds have been laid down repeatedly by Courts and we may refer only to a few of those decisions in 229 ITR 383 (SC), 187 ITR 688 (SC), 199 ITR 351 (Born FB), 193 ITR 624 (Ker). We overlooked this aspect of the issue and the same has now been brought to our knowledge by our counsels. Hence it is prayed that the above ground may be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law.” 4. In the course of hearing before me, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the addi…

SHI vs. Hambho Narayan Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3029/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Shivshambho Narayan Ddit (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5T H Floor, Geetai Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers , V. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadts8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram and Ms.Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri. V Justin

Section 1Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/s. Shivshambho Narayan DDIT (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5t h Floor, Geetai CHS Ltd., Piramal Chambers , v. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADTS8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. Shivram and Ms.Neelam C. Jadha…

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 3560/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhthe Boston Consulting Group Principal Commissioner Of (India) Private Ltd, 14Th Floor, Income –Tax -3 Mumbai, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 227, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. Bhupendra Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

…on record as the ground of appeal emanates from the order impugned in the present appeal. In support of his submission, the ld. counsel relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383) (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Vs CIT (187 ITR 688). 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. PCIT. The ld. DR further submits that the ld. PCIT gave detailed reasons in para-5 of his order about the admissibility of claim and in not making necessary investigation by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has not filed any material…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t proceedings in respect of liability arising on account of rejection of claim by the Government of Karnataka of Rs.548.64 lakhs, the ld.CIT(A), placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (187 ITR 688)(SC), CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (53 ITR 225)(SC) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (160 ITR 920)(SC) held that the claim should be allowed. 4. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 8 5. Ground Nos.1 and 6 are general in nature and do not require adjudication. 6. Grou…

Ipsos Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1517/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar & JasminFor Respondent: Jayant Kumar Ld. CIT DR &

Section 234ASection 40

…sdiction over the assessee. Since additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal grounds and do not require appreciation of new facts, the same are taken on record in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Court rendered in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT [187 ITR 688] and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383]. 3.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in the field of market research was assessed u/s 143(3) pursuant Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 to directions of Ld. DRP vide final assessment order dated 12/01/2015 passed by Ld. Additional Commissio…

Ipsos Research P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 1177/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar & JasminFor Respondent: Jayant Kumar Ld. CIT DR &

Section 234ASection 40

…sdiction over the assessee. Since additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal grounds and do not require appreciation of new facts, the same are taken on record in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Court rendered in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT [187 ITR 688] and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383]. 3.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in the field of market research was assessed u/s 143(3) pursuant Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 to directions of Ld. DRP vide final assessment order dated 12/01/2015 passed by Ld. Additional Commissio…