Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)

110 ITD 59Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#10075 most cited

What is Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · reassessment · new theory · section 139(9) · section 55(2) · section 49 · section 55 · valuation of shares · going concern · full value of consideration · transfer of capital asset · indexed cost of acquisition · date of transfer · section 48

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55valuation of sharesgoing concernfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)

Decent Industries P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Decent Industries ITO-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5th floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ DB City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAECA6271G Assessee by Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue by Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…w theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 208 ITR 740 at Pg. 743 vii. CIT vs. Steel Cast Corporation, 107 ITR 683 at Pg. 700 viii. Erriccson AB vs. DDIT, (2012) 25 taxmann.com 466 33.3. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that Leasehold…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…w theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 208 ITR 740 at Pg. 743 vii. CIT vs. Steel Cast Corporation, 107 ITR 683 at Pg. 700 viii. Erriccson AB vs. DDIT, (2012) 25 taxmann.com 466 33.3. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that Leasehold…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…w theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 208 ITR 740 at Pg. 743 vii. CIT vs. Steel Cast Corporation, 107 ITR 683 at Pg. 700 viii. Erriccson AB vs. DDIT, (2012) 25 taxmann.com 466 33.3. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that Leasehold…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…w theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 208 ITR 740 at Pg. 743 vii. CIT vs. Steel Cast Corporation, 107 ITR 683 at Pg. 700 viii. Erriccson AB vs. DDIT, (2012) 25 taxmann.com 466 33.3. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that Leasehold…

V.Anantha Kumar, Chamarajanagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-9(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…decisions: Sri V. Anantha Kumar, Chamarajnagar Page 5 of 8 a) CIT Vs. N.C. Budharaja & Copany (1993) 204 ITR 412. b) CIT Vs. Gwalior Ryan Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC). c) Tonira Pharma Ltd. 39 SOT 58. d) Kwal Pro Exports Vs. ACIT 110 ITD 59 By placing the reliance on the above said case laws, the Ld. CIT(A) expressed the view that in order to be eligible for exemption u/s 10B of the Act, the activity carried on by the assessee should necessarily fall under the category of manufacturing. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to exclude profit earned from export of finished pro…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…not challenge on the ruling of the Hon'ble Tribunal as regards the limitation on DR's powers to argue / make out on entirely new case contrary to the assessment order] ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K Rai - (2010) 1271TD 204 (Mumbai) Kwal Pro Exports v. ACIT - (2008) 110 ITD 59 (Jodhpur) Eiscsson AB v. DD1T (Intl. Tax) - (2012) 191TR(T) 341 (Delhi) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 106 ITD 1 (Delhi) Further in the case of CIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (I) Pvt Ltd (ITA No.692 and 693 of 2012 dated 22-08-2014 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court) it has been held that the Revenue cannot raise grounds before t…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…not challenge on the ruling of the Hon'ble Tribunal as regards the limitation on DR's powers to argue / make out on entirely new case contrary to the assessment order] ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K Rai - (2010) 1271TD 204 (Mumbai) Kwal Pro Exports v. ACIT - (2008) 110 ITD 59 (Jodhpur) Eiscsson AB v. DD1T (Intl. Tax) - (2012) 191TR(T) 341 (Delhi) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 106 ITD 1 (Delhi) Further in the case of CIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (I) Pvt Ltd (ITA No.692 and 693 of 2012 dated 22-08-2014 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court) it has been held that the Revenue cannot raise grounds before t…

Smt. Padmavathi, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward 3, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1306/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…17 SOT 602. 02 Gift land Handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312. 03 Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT, 93 ITR 144. 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, 108 TTJ 301. 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd 84 DTR 0045. 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156. 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd vs. JCIT, 76 ITR 65 and 12 Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd vs. DCIT, 55 ITD 24’’. Thus, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. PCIT ought not have exercised the power of rev…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…he shoes of the CIT exercising jurisdiction u/s 263. We. therefore, do not permit the Id. D.R. to transgress the boundaries of his arguments. Similar view has been taken by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kwal Pro Exports v. Asstt. CIT [20081 110 ITD 59 (Jodh.1 This contention is therefore repelled as devoid of any merit. "The Hon'ble S.C. in MCorp Global (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held as follows:-"Held, that u/s 254(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the A.O. or enhance the assessment. Since the A.O. had granted depreciation in respect of 42,000…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) (110 ITD 59) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax