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)

Farid Gulmohamed, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5136/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah

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

…ibunal has powers to admit and consider question of law not raised earlier, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - 4 Shri Farid Gulmohamed (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 prono…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2021/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrii.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(2), 31, Ismail Nagar, Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan:Aaacf7364F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat Bhusan Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Singhal, Adv

Section 145(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 44ASection 68

…of the Act, as discussed above. It has been stated that inadvertently, this addition had not been contested in the grounds of appeal filed with the appeal memo. Considering the ratio of decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jute Corporation of India (187 ITR 688) and NTPC (229 ITR 220) as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd (194 ITR 548), the ground of appeal be admitted. Considering the assessment order, it is apparent that the additionon account of sundry creditors had not been contested in the original grounds of appeal due to an advertence. I…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Transcent Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2148/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2148/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92C

…aise the aforesaid additional grounds. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (S.C)and in the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India Vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (S.C). It was stated that the discretion vest in the I.T.A.T under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, it is prayed that the aforesaid additional ground of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated on merits. The assessee emphasises that the request should be acceded to. 5. The Ld. AR further submitted that he is not…

Sumitomo Chemical India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J., D.R

Section 133Section 37(1)

…sdiction 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 Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT’ 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688 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 or limitations, if an…

Sumitomo Chemical India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1353/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J., D.R

Section 133Section 37(1)

…sdiction 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 Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT’ 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688 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 or limitations, if an…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3417/M/2009 & CO No.201/M/2012 Assessment Years: 2001-02 M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Addl. CIT, (formerly known as Videsh Range – 1(3), Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACV2808C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2001-02 Addl. CIT, M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Room No.540/564, 5th Floor, (formerly known as Videsh M.K. Road, Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Vs. New Marine Lines, M.G. Road, Mumb…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3326/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3417/M/2009 & CO No.201/M/2012 Assessment Years: 2001-02 M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Addl. CIT, (formerly known as Videsh Range – 1(3), Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACV2808C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2001-02 Addl. CIT, M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Room No.540/564, 5th Floor, (formerly known as Videsh M.K. Road, Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Vs. New Marine Lines, M.G. Road, Mumb…

Jazzy Creations P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4560/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, And, Vide Order Dated 19Th August 2013, The Matter Was Remitted To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing That, “...We Consider It Appropriate To Restore The Entire Issue Regarding The Tp Adjustment To The File Of The Cit(A) With A Direction To Re-Adjudicate The Same By Taking Into Account The Aforesaid Amendment As Well As Other Grievances On The Assessee On Tp Adjustment By Giving The Assessee A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing.....” The Assessee Is Not Satisfied By The Stand Taken By The Cit(A) In The Remanded Proceedings As Well. That Is Why The Assessee Is Once Again In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…n in the appeal filed against the second reassessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 688, it cannot be disputed that the assessee could have raised this ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his appeal against the first order of reassessment. The pertinent question is whether the new ground could be taken in reassessment proceedings after remand. This takes us to another aspect of the question, namely, whether the ass…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 9, Kolkata

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1622/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…the return filed by it. It is necessary for us to refer to some of these decisions only to deal with two submissions on behalf of the department. The first is with respect to an observation of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs CIT , (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgement of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT in (2006) 157 Taxman 1. 13. The appellate authorities, therefore, have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on ITA Nos. 1622/Kol/2011 & M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation 22 451/Kol/2013-A-AM account of change…