What is National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT authority for?

An assessee can raise a new claim or ground for the first time before an appellate authority or the Tribunal, even if no revised return was filed, provided the claim was legally available and the necessary facts are on record or can be examined. Such a claim, if available in law, cannot be shut out merely due to inadvertence or an erroneous belief of a complex legal position.

How many judgments cite National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT?

62 judgments on BharatTax cite National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT (367 ITR 85), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 254(1), Section 115JB, Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 139(5), Section 143(3).

National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT (367 ITR 85)

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…cited therein had held that instead of rejecting the additional claim of the assessee authority should make endeavour to examine the bonafide claim of the assessee on merits. We are also find that Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mitesh Impex [2014J 367 ITR 85 (Guj) has held that if a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be shut out for all times to come, merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the Assessing Officer…

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…cited therein had held that instead of rejecting the additional claim of the assessee authority should make endeavour to examine the bonafide claim of the assessee on merits. We are also find that Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mitesh Impex [2014J 367 ITR 85 (Guj) has held that if a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be shut out for all times to come, merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the Assessing Officer…

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

…ue was adjudicated in assessee’s favour by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Nitin Spinners Ltd. (supra) that, the assessee made this claim before the ld. CIT(A). We observe that the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mitesh Impex (367 ITR 85) after considering the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT [1998] (229 ITR 383) and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] (284 ITR 323) has held that, if a claim which is available in law is not raised either inadvertently or an account of erroneous understanding of complex legal position, such a relief cannot be sh…

RAJ COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI ITO 22.3.1, PIRMAL CHAMBERS

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 508/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 508/Mum/2025 (Ay 2023-24) (Physical Hearing) Raj Coop Housing Society, Ito, Ward 30(1)(5) Cts Raj Palace 11Th Road, Mumbai बनाम Khar West, Mumbai-400052 Vs Pan : Aaaar 6493 H] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…In the present case the assessee failed to file revised return in time. We find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Prithivi Brokers & Share Holders (P) Ltd. 349 ITR 336/208 Taxman 498 (Bom) and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj) held that Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider the additional claim and discretion to permit additional ground by way of 3 Raj Coop Housing Society additional claims. Such claims need not to be those which became available on account of change of circumstances of law but which was even available when return was filed. Thus, considering the…

DHARMESH KANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 173/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmesh Kanubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 59, Patel Street, At Post Kosad, 2(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम Tal-Choryasi, Dist. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs Surat-394 107 [Pan : Ascpp 6161 F] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54B

…assessee is entitled to raise additional claim before First Appellate Authority in view of various decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including in case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 46 taxmann.com 30 (Guj)/[2014] 225 Taxman 168 (Guj) (Mag.)[2014] 367 ITR 85 (Guj)/[2014] 270 CTR 66(Guj) [02-04- 2014]. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that since he has raised additional claim for the first time before Tribunal. Furthermore, neither the Assessing Officer has considered the report of DVO nor the report of Government Registered Valuer. Therefore, in all fairness, matter may be restored back to the file…

HARPREET KAUR KAUSHIK MANEK,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 109/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…poration of India vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC) and National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Ld. AR also relied upon the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court’s decision in the case of S.R. koshti vs CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165, CIT vs Mitesh Impex (2014) 367 ITR 85 and PCIT vs UTI Bank (2017) 398 ITR 514. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed as to what exactly the money in respect of margin as the same was not explained by the assessee and the Assessing Officer, despite asking for the documentary evidence, was not given the ledger to explain the concept of the transactions and…

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 383/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…t the CITA) erred in allowing the depreciation on assets of Rs.27,38,895/- which was not made in return of income. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. 43. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mitesh Impex, 367 ITR 85 and further submitted that this issue has been decided in Assessment Year 2010-11 being ground no.8 therein and the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to allow this claim after verification. ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page 18 of 20 44. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material availab…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 345/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…t the CITA) erred in allowing the depreciation on assets of Rs.27,38,895/- which was not made in return of income. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. 43. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mitesh Impex, 367 ITR 85 and further submitted that this issue has been decided in Assessment Year 2010-11 being ground no.8 therein and the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to allow this claim after verification. ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page 18 of 20 44. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material availab…