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

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ly when they are raised in a bona fide manner without indulging in delaying tactics. In this connection, we wish to rely on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Honbie Jurisdictional High Court:- 1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 2. CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 5. Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 6. Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 7. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)]” 3.8. Following additional gro…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4497/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ly when they are raised in a bona fide manner without indulging in delaying tactics. In this connection, we wish to rely on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Honbie Jurisdictional High Court:- 1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 2. CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 5. Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 6. Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 7. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)]” 3.8. Following additional gro…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1294/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(6)Section 244A

…matter. He has submitted that failure to raise these grounds at an earlier stage is neither willful nor wanton but due to oversight. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions : i. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. 187 ITR 688 (SC) ii. NTPC Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) iii. Ahmedabad Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) Thus the learned Authorised Representative has pleaded that the additional grounds raised by the assessee may be adjudicated on merits. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has vehemently opposed to the admission…

ITO 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Meghi Parbat Patel, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6390/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…proposition that the Tribunal has powers to admit and consider question of law not raised earlier, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) National Thermal Power Corporation (229 ITR 383) (SC) (ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688 (SC) (iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. ()199 ITR 351) (Bom) 4.2 We have heard the rival contentions of the learned A.R. for the assessee and the learned D.R. for Revenue and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. From an appreciation of the material on record and the judicial pron…

I.T.O WD - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2259/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…12.2012. The AO has informed vide his letter No. ITO/Wd- 8(2)/Kol/2012-13/Appeal/111 dated 04.01.2013 that he would submit a report within 15 days. However, he has not submitted any report till today. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 187 ITR 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate authority has all the plenary power which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify the curtailment of the powers of the appellate authority in entertaining the additional grounds of appeal. The AO is directed to allow the claim of the appellant for…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle Petrofer P.Lt, Mumbai

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri K.C.Kanojia (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 253Section 80I

…sessee and as such re-assessment is invalid. In support of filing of additional ground of C.O., the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of (i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [219 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)]. The ld AR for assess argued that additional ground of C.O. may be admitted as the same is purely question of fact and that no new facts are required to be brought on record. Ld. On the other hand 3 ITA No. 182/M/2015 & C.O. 123/M/2016 M/s Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2986/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR
Section 14A

…he CIT(A) are co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he can also do what the Assessing Officer could have done but failed to do. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) by holding that power of the AAC is co-terminus with that of the ITO. In view of these precedents, it is manifest that if some deficiency is left by the Assessing Officer in making an assessment, that can be made good by the CIT(A). 8. Coming to the context of Section 14A and the requirement of recording satisfaction before invoking the man…

M/S Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR
Section 14A

…he CIT(A) are co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he can also do what the Assessing Officer could have done but failed to do. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) by holding that power of the AAC is co-terminus with that of the ITO. In view of these precedents, it is manifest that if some deficiency is left by the Assessing Officer in making an assessment, that can be made good by the CIT(A). 8. Coming to the context of Section 14A and the requirement of recording satisfaction before invoking the man…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2151 & 2153/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09)

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…unds of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated by Your Honours. In this regard, we rely upon the following decisions rendered by various courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Coroporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)]” 4.2 We have heard counsel for both the parties on application for raising additional grounds and considering the fact that the ground raised through the present application is purely legal in nature and no new evidence is required to be brought on record in deciding the pu…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2151/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2151 & 2153/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09)

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…unds of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated by Your Honours. In this regard, we rely upon the following decisions rendered by various courts. i. National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] ii. Jute Coroporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)]” 4.2 We have heard counsel for both the parties on application for raising additional grounds and considering the fact that the ground raised through the present application is purely legal in nature and no new evidence is required to be brought on record in deciding the pu…

Ritu Chaudhry D/O Surendra Pal Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri. A. K. GhoshFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rlier. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that reasons recorded for reopening the assessment fall in the realm legal grounds which go to the root of the matter and relying on the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC); CIT vs. NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom), we admit the additional grounds. 6. As the additional ground raised by the assessee has a bearing on the issue at hand, we shall discuss it first. We have gone through the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28…

Magma Design Automation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 1214/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 1OSection 253

…states and submits that the issues raised in the additional ground above are legal issues and 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 be pleased to; (i) admit and adjudicate the above additional ground, (ii) pass any other order t…

DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Bhide, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…ppeal 214/2013, the relevant para of the said judgment are reproduced below: CO Nos.20 & 21/Kol/14 M/s. Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd. “7. Reference was also made to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ClT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- "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 authority is vested with all the plenary…

Raychem Rpg P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4780/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane
Section 10BSection 145ASection 71

…he Assessing Officer, therefore, the issue raised being purely a legal issue, the ground raised may be admitted. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v/s CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1998] 229 ITR 383; and iii) CIT v/s Prithvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). 9. As far as merits of the issue is concerned, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee has two units out of which one is eligible to avail exemption under section 10B being a 100%…

Dipsc Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I T Cir - VI, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 891/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…ground which does not require any further investigation of facts and purely legal in nature, is raised it may be admitted. Rejection of the grounds based on law is not in compliance with the principle laid down in Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) should have entertained the grounds urged before him basing on the applicability of section 115JB of the Act. 24. Now coming to the merits of applicability of Section 115JB of the Act, there is no dispute that the assessee is a Public Limited company engaged in the business of generation/distribution of power and energy and…

Dpsc Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1656/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…ground which does not require any further investigation of facts and purely legal in nature, is raised it may be admitted. Rejection of the grounds based on law is not in compliance with the principle laid down in Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) should have entertained the grounds urged before him basing on the applicability of section 115JB of the Act. 24. Now coming to the merits of applicability of Section 115JB of the Act, there is no dispute that the assessee is a Public Limited company engaged in the business of generation/distribution of power and energy and…

ITO 26(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Vishal Vinod Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4209/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Neil PhilipFor Respondent: Shri D.C.Saboo
Section 142(1)Section 147

…lacunae in the remand report of the AO and then making the same basis for deletion. The ld. DR in order to support his arguments had relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate (53 ITR 225(SC) (1964) Jute Corpn.of India Ltd Vs CIT (53 Taxmann 85 (SC)(1990) & CIT Vs K.S.Dattreya (197 Taxmann 151 (Kar) (2011). The ld.DR further argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the findings of AO’s remand report as well as the DDIT(Inv.) and has only considered the discrepancies and shortcomings pointed out by the AO in remand report for unexplained investments in purchase of shares of M/s…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…wer of Hon'ble ITAT to include a power to entertain a claim for the first time based in a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before ITA T. Hon'bIe High Court heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688) and NTPC (supra) to decide on the powers of the Appellate Authorities. On page 349 of the Report, Hon'bIe High Court has referred to Goetze (supra) and has observed that in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no claim before the appellate authorities and that the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities has not been negated in Goet…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…wer of Hon'ble ITAT to include a power to entertain a claim for the first time based in a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before ITA T. Hon'bIe High Court heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688) and NTPC (supra) to decide on the powers of the Appellate Authorities. On page 349 of the Report, Hon'bIe High Court has referred to Goetze (supra) and has observed that in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no claim before the appellate authorities and that the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities has not been negated in Goet…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…wer of Hon'ble ITAT to include a power to entertain a claim for the first time based in a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before ITA T. Hon'bIe High Court heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (187 ITR 688) and NTPC (supra) to decide on the powers of the Appellate Authorities. On page 349 of the Report, Hon'bIe High Court has referred to Goetze (supra) and has observed that in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no claim before the appellate authorities and that the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities has not been negated in Goet…