K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC)

202 CTR 40High Court2006#10579 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysiscorporate guaranteeright to receive

Judgments citing K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC)

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…6. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground of appeal relating to a legal plea can be raised at any stage:- i) K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC); ii) Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr.: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.); iii) Jindai Polyester & Steel Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 2521 & 3044/ Del/97 (Del. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…6. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground of appeal relating to a legal plea can be raised at any stage:- i) K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC); ii) Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr.: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.); iii) Jindai Polyester & Steel Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 2521 & 3044/ Del/97 (Del. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187…

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…6. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground of appeal relating to a legal plea can be raised at any stage:- i) K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC); ii) Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr.: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.); iii) Jindai Polyester & Steel Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 2521 & 3044/ Del/97 (Del. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…6. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground of appeal relating to a legal plea can be raised at any stage:- i) K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC); ii) Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr.: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.); iii) Jindai Polyester & Steel Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 2521 & 3044/ Del/97 (Del. Trib) 146. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar/ prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187…

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…uestion of limitation goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. [Refer: ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE (2004) 3 SCC 48; JDB Srinivasan vs. Secretary of Govt. of Tamil Nadu [1994] 92 STC 631 (Mad.), Zakir Hussain vs CIT: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.), Shilpa Associates vs ITO 181 CTR 92 (Raj)], KC Khajanchi vs. ITAT (Civil Writ No. 2164/99), Jindal polyester & steel Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3044/Del/97), Deep Chand Kothari vs CIT : 171 ITR 381 (Raj.). Thus it was submitted that the additional ground raised must be admitted. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to…

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…uestion of limitation goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. [Refer: ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE (2004) 3 SCC 48; JDB Srinivasan vs. Secretary of Govt. of Tamil Nadu [1994] 92 STC 631 (Mad.), Zakir Hussain vs CIT: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.), Shilpa Associates vs ITO 181 CTR 92 (Raj)], KC Khajanchi vs. ITAT (Civil Writ No. 2164/99), Jindal polyester & steel Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3044/Del/97), Deep Chand Kothari vs CIT : 171 ITR 381 (Raj.). Thus it was submitted that the additional ground raised must be admitted. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to…

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…N. Mehta (HUF) (2002) 77 TTJ 63 (Jd) 64-65 11 Radhey Shyam Tanwar V/s ACIT (2002) 77 TTJ 509 (Jd) 65 12 Maheshwari Industries v/s ACIT (2003) 81 TTJ 914 (Jd) 65 13 Vimal Raj Singhvi V/s ACIT (2006) 104 TTJ 321 (Jd) 65-66 14 Zakir Hussain v/s CIT & Ors. (2006) 202 CTR 40 (Raj.) 66 15 Shree Chand Soni v/s DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 1028 (Jd) 67 16 Ajay Sharma v/s ACIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Del) 1065 67-69 17 Smt. Sujata Graover v/s ACIT (2006) 99 TTJ (Del) 837 69 18 CIT v/s naveen gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) 69-70 19 CIT V/s Bajrang Lal Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572 (Delhi) 70-71 20 ITO V/s Dua Auto Components (P) Ltd. (2011) 1…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT (272 ITR 560) and Zakir Hussain vs. CIT (202 CTR 40). 8. Further, with regard to the reliance of the learned DR on the decisions of State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others, Santosh Kumar 13 Tata Sons Limited Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr., CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat…

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT (272 ITR 560) and Zakir Hussain vs. CIT (202 CTR 40). 8. Further, with regard to the reliance of the learned DR on the decisions of State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others, Santosh Kumar 13 Tata Sons Limited Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr., CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT (272 ITR 560) and Zakir Hussain vs. CIT (202 CTR 40). 8. Further, with regard to the reliance of the learned DR on the decisions of State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others, Santosh Kumar 13 Tata Sons Limited Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr., CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat…

K.C. Khazanchi v. IT AT: C.W. No. 2164/99 (Del. HC) (202 CTR 40) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax