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

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 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 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

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…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

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…

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 32

…ibunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. While deciding the issue as above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd.. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC). 19. In the case of Emerson Network Power India Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 27 SOT 593 (BOM), the Hon'ble Bombay ITAT has held as under: "Business expenditure'- Allowability - Claim made at the time of assessment - Claim not made in original return nor made by way of valid revised return but made in the course of assessment - A.O was obliged…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anantharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 142Section 69

…es Ltd. AIT 2011 140 ITAT (Mum). In this case, the Hon.ble ITAT after considering the various judgements and relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT229ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) observed as under: "25. We fails to see any prejudice that would be caused to the revenue, if the issue is examined afresh by the AO. The objection that the additional ground should not be admitted seems to suggest that tax liability can be fastened on a taxpayer even without deciding existence or otherwise of such liability in accordance w…

M/S. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee-company is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1302/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1302/Bang/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) M/s.Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, 3rd floor, Divyasree Greens, Koramangala Ring Road, Bangalore-71 … Appellant PA No.AABCD 1741 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU, Bangalore … Respondent Appellant by : Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri P.Chandrashekar. CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 08/06/2016 Date of pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA R…

Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5757/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2008-09 Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1) C/O Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (Pan: Aakcs1233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…al.” 2. Assessee has also filed an Application for admission of additional grounds of Appeal vide its Application dated 27.6.2016 in which the assessee has stated that in view of the settled decisions in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC), Jute Corporation 187 ITR 688 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of PV Doshi’s case 113 ITR 22 (legal ground can be raised for first time in collateral and second round also). The legal ground can be very well raised for first before the ITAT which goes to the root of the matter and pertains to the assumption of jurisdiction. For the sake of convenience,…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 911/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…of the Tribunal.—National Thermal Power Co. ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249 : (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (Del) 472 : (1999) 238 ITR 268(Del), Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) relied on; Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished. Appeal (Tribunal)—Additional ground—Claim for deduction not claimed in the return—Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expend…

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…of the Tribunal.—National Thermal Power Co. ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249 : (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Gedore Tools (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (Del) 472 : (1999) 238 ITR 268(Del), Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) relied on; Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished. Appeal (Tribunal)—Additional ground—Claim for deduction not claimed in the return—Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expend…

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2058/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours…

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2588/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours…

M/S. Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours…

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5869/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours…

Microsoft India (R&D) Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5232/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions: ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours…

Valuable Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5981/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 43BSection 44ASection 8O

…ective. Before the CIT(A), assessee had raised the claim for deduction under section 80G amounting to Rs.35.00 lacs as an Additional Ground based on parity reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) as also in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). So however, the CIT(A) disposed of the same by noticing that such claim was not raised before the Assessing Officer by way of any revised return but (Assessment Year : 2010-11) only through a written communication during the assessment proceedings. Ostensibly,…

Emcee Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 253/KOL/2016[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

…I.T.A. No. 253/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2000-2001 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 253 /KOL/ 2016 Assessment Year: 2000-2001 Emcee Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited,....................................Appellant DA-201, Ground Floor, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [PAN : AAACE 5456 F] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.................................Respondent Circle-11, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA, for th…

Ushdev International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 3294/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ushdev International Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 020 Road, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Ushdev International Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Income Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 001 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 80I

…may be admitted. The assessee while raising the additional grounds further relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of (i) National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)], (ii) Jute Corporation of India v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] and (iii) the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Full Bench rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB). 12. Out of the three additional grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal, additional ground No.3 is general in nature and requires no specific adjudication. The effective interrelated & interco…

Shri Dharam Pal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 1840/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 144

…this was the First appeal against the assessment order and there was no reasonable ground on the basis of which the grounds could not have been amended before the CIT(A). The judgements relied upon by the CIT(A) namely Jute Corporation of India vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) and others proceed entirely on different sets of facts and circumstances. The said decisions are a precedent to be considered while deciding whether a party can be allowed to raise any issue before the Tribunal especially an issue was never agitated before the First Appellate Authority or before the AO. The reliance placed upon those deci…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…be read as though it never had the said sub-section (9) in it in all proceedings under the Act. As the appellate proceedings are the continuation of the assessment proceedings, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd (187 ITR 688) even for assessment year 2003-04 the aforesaid section 10B has to be read without the impugned sub-section 10B has to be read without the 12 CO No.81/M/2010 impugned sub-section (9). Therefore, we find much force in the stand taken by the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. Even on this issue, the assessee is bound to succeed.…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…, 60 ITA 3812/M/12 & 3821/M/12 on merits and in the interest of justice and fair play the additional evidences submitted by the assessee company were admitted by the CIT(A) , relying on the following judgments :- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT 187 ITR 688(SC) ii) CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225(SC) iii) Narondas Manordas v. CIT 31 ITR 909 (Bom.) iv) Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited v. CIT 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB) v) Nirbheram Deluram v. CIT 224 ITR 610(SC) The CIT(A) observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, remand proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee comp…

The Senate, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 36

…mits that the additional grounds may kindly be admitted in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: ITA Nos.1475 to 1481/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 a) CIT Vs National Thermal Power Corporation (229 ITR 383) b) Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT (187 ITR 688)” It was prayed that since additional grounds go to the root of jurisdiction and purely on point of question of law, can be admitted in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. National Thermal Power Corporation (229 ITR 383). The learned Departmental Representative has no objection for admission of additional groun…