Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax

31 ITR 909High Court1957#2938 most cited

What is Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's (AAC) power to enhance an assessment is broad and not limited to the specific items of appeal, but it is restricted to income that was originally before the Income Tax Officer and cannot introduce entirely new sources of income.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narrondas Manordass v. CIT · section 31(3) · Appellate Assistant Commissioner powers · enhancement of assessment · new sources of income · scope of appeal powers · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 132(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 205section 36(l)(vii)section 9(1)(ii)section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 43b(f)section 211section 31section 245hasection 52section 36(l)

Judgments citing Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Melongos India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…ai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria's case 13 (supra) still holds the feet. It may be noted that the issue was considered in CIT v. McMillan and Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC). Referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Narondas Manordass v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 909 (Bom), it was held that the language used in section 31 of the old Act is wide enough to enable the first appellate authority to correct the Income Tax Officer not only with regard to a matter which has been raised by the assessed but also with regard to a matter which has been considered by the assessing officer and determined in the course of th…

Sugota Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…ax v. McMillan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 (SC); but the question, with which we are concerned, was left open. There is, however, a passage in the judgment, approving of the observations of Chagla, C.J., in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909 to the following effect: "It is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been constituted a revising authority against the decisions of the Income-tax Officer; a revising authority not in the narrow sense of revising what is the subject-matter of the appeal, not in the sense of revising those matters 5 I.T.A. No. 1459/Kol/2019 Assessme…

Manjit Management Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2667/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [Pan : Aaecm 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…y nugatory. The controversy in this case is about his discovering new sources, not mentioned in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court held following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are confined to what was before the Income-tax Officer and considered by the latter. The correctness of this view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.The earliest case, which considered the meaning of section 31(3), was Jagarnath Ther…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…y nugatory. The controversy in this case is about his discovering new sources, not mentioned in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court held following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are confined to what was before the Income-tax Officer and considered by the latter. The correctness of this ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 13 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The earlies…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…y nugatory. The controversy in this case is about his discovering new sources, not mentioned in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court held following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are confined to what was before the Income-tax Officer and considered by the latter. The correctness of this ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 13 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The earlies…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…y nugatory. The controversy in this case is about his discovering new sources, not mentioned in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court held following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are confined to what was before the Income-tax Officer and considered by the latter. The correctness of this ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 13 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The earlies…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…y nugatory. The controversy in this case is about his discovering new sources, not mentioned in the return and not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court held following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 909, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are confined to what was before the Income-tax Officer and considered by the latter. The correctness of this ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 13 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The earlies…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

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)

…e, the taxability of which had not been considered at all by the AO.7 Footnote details in respect of extract reproduced hereinabove are as under: 1. CIT vs Namberumal reported in 1 ITR 32; Gowri vs CIT 31 ITR 250; 2. Peareylal 10 ITR 239; 3. Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909 approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath vs. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz 6 ITR 370; Gajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 4…

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…he revenue authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not an ordinary Court of appeal such as ITAT or other appellate authorities and has more powers than them. In this respect, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Narrondas Manordass vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 909 (Born. HC). Ld. DR also during the course of hearing relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. McMillan & Co. 13 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty [1958] 33 ITR 182 and CIT v. Nirbherarn Deluram [1997] 224 ITR 610. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on reco…

Centram Broking P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4525/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Centrum Broking Pvt. Ltd Dy. Cit- Range 4(1), बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Mumbai -400 098. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ITA No. 4525/Mum/2011-A.Y. 2007-08 1 M/s Centrum Broking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s Centrum Broking Pvt. Ltd Dy. CIT- Range 4(1), बिधम/ 5th Floor, Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Mumbai -400 098. Vs. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCA1498E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri J.D Mistry, Senior Advocate & Shri Surendra Mijsure, A.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 14.09.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / :…

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)

…ditional 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 company has explained that it issued preferential shares to M/s BWGL at the rate of Rs.12/- per sh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advert Communication, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri K. Sampath, Raja Kumar, Advocates
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 69C

…or annul the assessment. While laying dicta about the powers of the CIT(A), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs McMillan & Co. Reported as 33 ITR 182(S.C.) approving the proposition laid by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narrondas Manordass vs CIT 31 ITR 909 (Bombay), it was held that the powers of CIT(A) are much wider than the powers of the appellate under Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and he has jurisdiction over entire assessment without being confined to the issues or subject matter of the appeal and first appellate authority may examine all issues relevant to assessment order and he is empowered…