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 371,887 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

K Sera Sera Productions Ltd ( Foremerly Known As Garnet Paper Mills Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the same stands allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2740/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: S/Shri R.P.Meena/Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2740/Mum/2011,(A.Y.2004-05) ITA No. 7552/Mum/2013,(A.Y.2004-05) K.Sera Sera Productions Limited, 18, 4th Floor, Mohid Heights, Above Masala Mantra Restaurant, Lokhandwala Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 PAN:AAACG 5103D ...... Appellant Vs. The DCIT, C.C-38, Room No.32(1) Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent ITA No. 3308/Mum/2011,(A.Y.2004-05) ITA No. 6961/Mum/2013,(A.Y.2004-05) The DCIT, C.C-38, Room No.32(1) Ground Floor, Aayk…

Essar Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…on’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court decision, it has been prayed that the additional ground may be admitted: 3 Essar Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT 1. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) 2. Jute Corporation of India v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) 5. Upon hearing both the Counsel and perusing the record, we admit with the additional ground and, accordingly, proceed to adjudicate the additional ground raised. In this case, the DRP has passed the direction dated 31.12.2013. As per the ld. Counsel of the assessee, th…

Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 268 & 269/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.....................................Appellant Post. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin. 721636 (W.B.) [PAN : AAACT9751C] ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia……………………………………………….......................Respondent Basudevpur, Khanjancha, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin. 721602 (W.B.) Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)…

Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle - 27, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 268 & 269/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.....................................Appellant Post. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin. 721636 (W.B.) [PAN : AAACT9751C] ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia……………………………………………….......................Respondent Basudevpur, Khanjancha, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin. 721602 (W.B.) Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)…

G.Narasiman, Erode vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the foregoing terms

ITA 1000/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 26.07.2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e admitted in the appellate proceedings. The law in the matter is well-settled, and toward which reference be made, inter alia, to the decisions in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), reference to which stands made, reproducing therefrom, in Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (at pgs 258-259), clarifying that where the relevant material was available on record, the legal question could be answered by the appellate forum itself or through a remand to the AO (para 18/pg. 264 of the Reports). There is no reference to th…

Bhavesh P. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6580/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6580/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mr. Bhavesh P. Gandhi Acit, Central Circle – 38, Now Dcit-Cc-6(3), 19Th Floor, C/O. Skil House, 209, Bank Street बनाम/ Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpg 9515 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. K. Mutsaddi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri S. K. MutsaddiFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…For admission of this additional ground, the assessee has made following prayer : Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are additional legal Grounds, which go to the root of the appeal and it is humbly prayed that by following the decisions in Jute Corporation of India v. CIT – 187 ITR 688 (Supreme Court), Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT – 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) & CIT v. Prithvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), the same be admitted. 4. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of nine days in filing the appeal. The reasonable cause for the delay has been attributed to the illness of the ld. Counsel.…

Yogesh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1757/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)

…all not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground. By now it is well settled by Apex Court decisions in cases of NTPC 229 ITR 383 SC, and Jute corporation 187 ITR 688 & Gujarat high court in P.V.Doshi case 113 ITR 22 (legal ground can be raised for first time in collateral and second round also) that legal ground can be very well raised for first time before this hon’ble ITAT which goes to the root of the matter and pertains to assumption of jurisdiction (here jurisdiction to frame assessment is assailed). On…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…the net capital gains earned thereon. 4. The additional ground so raised by the assessee is purely legal. Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Corporation, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688, we accept the additional ground which is purely legal in nature for adjudication. 5. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah earning income from salary, business, capital gains and other sources. He is an investor in shares an…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…the net capital gains earned thereon. 4. The additional ground so raised by the assessee is purely legal. Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Corporation, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688, we accept the additional ground which is purely legal in nature for adjudication. 5. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah earning income from salary, business, capital gains and other sources. He is an investor in shares an…

DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S. India Glycols Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1628/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2006-2007

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

Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80I

…while entering the data in “e” filing return inadvertently. The assessee is entitled to claim its deduction without filing the revised return of income in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 187 ITR 688 (SC). Moreover the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra) has ITA No.1628/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT Cir-12 Kol. Vs. M/s India Glycols Ltdl. Page 3 made it clear that the appellant authority can entertain and allow the additional claim of the assessee. After considering the submission of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) grante…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1597/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…he lower authorities. 8. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383 (SC) as well as in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688 (SC), the additional Grounds raised before us deserve to be admitted for adjudication inasmuch as the same involve points of law and does not require any further or fresh investigation of facts. It is also clear that the issues raised in the additional Grounds of appeal go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1596/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…he lower authorities. 8. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383 (SC) as well as in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688 (SC), the additional Grounds raised before us deserve to be admitted for adjudication inasmuch as the same involve points of law and does not require any further or fresh investigation of facts. It is also clear that the issues raised in the additional Grounds of appeal go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty…

Rel Utility Engimeers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…claim by way of revised return only. In the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT” (supra) and “Jute Corporation of India Ltd.” 187 ITR 688 and held that if the claim is a legal claim then no verification of facts is required, so the claim can be allowed during the appellate proceedings. He, accordingly, verified the facts on the file and allowed the claim of the assessee in this respect and directed the AO to assess the profits from mutual funds under the head “Capital gains”. The r…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Sonata Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6931/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…claim by way of revised return only. In the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT” (supra) and “Jute Corporation of India Ltd.” 187 ITR 688 and held that if the claim is a legal claim then no verification of facts is required, so the claim can be allowed during the appellate proceedings. He, accordingly, verified the facts on the file and allowed the claim of the assessee in this respect and directed the AO to assess the profits from mutual funds under the head “Capital gains”. The r…

M/S Ab (Wines) Stores, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…that would not confer automatic revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act for the ld CIT. In this regard, the reliance placed by the ld AR on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs CIT and Another reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) is very well founded , wherein it was held that :- 5. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225, a three-Judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a ) of the 1922 Act, which is almost identical to section 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes th…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Consulting India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4398/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Credit Suisse Consulting Circle 3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Unit No.94, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal House, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 Pan: Aaccc5398J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 37(1)

…ase. In my opinion, the appellant had reasonable cause in not being able to submit the details of balance expenses amounting to Rs.22,42,266/-. Hence, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jute Corporation of India, 187 ITR 688 (SC) and NTFC Ltd V CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and that of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Prabhavati Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom), additional evidences are admitted under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 4.6 The Appellant has furnished plausible reasons for not being able to furnish the supporting evidences relating to the expenses claimed duri…

Mrs. Alka Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3065/DEL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3065/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1999-2000 Alka Goel, Vs Income Tax Officer, 32-E, Sainik Farm, Ward-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpg1271G Assessee By : Sh. A. Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. A. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151oSection 2Section 68

…d. Counsel for the assessee requested to admit the additional evidences and the additional grounds. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) " Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT & Anr. 187 ITR 688 (SC) 6. In his rival submissions the ld. DR opposed to admit the additional evidences and the additional ground. Alternatively, it was submitted that the matter may be restored to the AO to consider the additional evidences furnished by the assessee first time before the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and care…

M/S Indu Arts, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6611/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07 Indu Arts, Vs. Acit, A-292, Shastri Nagar, Circle 19(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafi2137E

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)

…nous with that of the ITO. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do.’ This golden rule has been reiterated in several judgments including by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT and Anr. (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). The principle which, therefore, emerges is that the power of CIT(A) is absolute and extends to all such things which the Assessing Officer can do. However, there is an inherent limitation of this principle, which is, that the CIT(A) cannot do what the Assessing Officer in the original assessment could not have done. In simple words, if t…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…l grounds and requested that keeping in view of the following decisions, the additional grounds raised by the assessee may be admitted and decided first. National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., 229 ITR 383 (SC) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj.) Steel Ingots (P.) Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., 86 Taxman 440 (MP) C.I.T. Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Spri…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…l grounds and requested that keeping in view of the following decisions, the additional grounds raised by the assessee may be admitted and decided first. National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., 229 ITR 383 (SC) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj.) Steel Ingots (P.) Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., 86 Taxman 440 (MP) C.I.T. Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 233 ITR 429 (MP) Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 162 S.C.361 Navnitlal C. Zaveri V/s. K K Sent, ACIT Bombay 56 ITR 198 (S.C) Chokshi Metal Refinery V/s. CIT 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT v. Jai Parbolic Spri…