Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT v. Jagdish

148 ITR 7High Court#8768 most cited

What is Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT v. Jagdish authority for?

An appellate authority cannot enhance income based on items not considered by the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority's power is limited to matters decided by the Assessing Officer, although the entire assessment is thrown open for review.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chaganlal Kailas & Co. · 148 ITR 7 · jurisdiction · enhance income · Assessing Officer · appellate authority · scope of appeal

Judgments citing Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT v. Jagdish

Girish Kidiyappa Nashi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 69

…nces the income on the basis of the items of income which were not before the Assessing Officer and not Page 6 of 16 considered by the Assessing Officer. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Changanlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 and also Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. 74 ITR 254 wherein held that "entire assessment is thrown before the first appellate authority in an appeal and so long as he does not travel outside the matter considered and determined by the Assessing Officer." 11. He submitted that the source of the said cash deposit…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 7302/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…9 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source…

Shri Sunil Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle -2(1), Indore

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

ITA 312/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…B). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects validity of assessment, power of CIT(A) cannot extend to enhancing the assessment, it must be limited to annulling assessmen…

Shri Prabhat Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

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

ITA 310/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…B). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects validity of assessment, power of CIT(A) cannot extend to enhancing the assessment, it must be limited to annulling assessmen…

Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT v. Jagdish (148 ITR 7) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax