National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT

367 ITR 85High Court2014#1837 most cited

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

The Assessing Officer must consider fresh claims made during assessment proceedings, as income tax proceedings are not adversarial and income should be computed according to law, unless a statutory bar exists. The Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining new claims.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

National Thermal Power Corporation v CIT · CIT v Mitesh Impex · 367 ITR 85 · assessment proceedings · fresh claim · Assessing Officer · statutory bar · Goetze India Ltd · appellate authorities · new claim

Sections most often in play

Section 254(1)Section 115JBSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1903/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1902/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1901/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and i…

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37

…computed in accordance with the provisions of law, even a fresh claim made during the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of any statutory bar should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mitesh Impex 367 ITR 85 held that the income tax proceedings cannot be treated as adverse proceedings and income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of law and further held that the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not put any fetters on the powers of Appellate authorities in entertaining a new claim. The…

Gunnebo, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1441/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gunnebo Ab Acit (International बिधम/ Po Box No.5181, Goteberg, Taxation), Circle-2(3)(2) Vs. Sweden. Room No.2908, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg9613J (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Pratik Shah/Riddhi Maru Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/PratikFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 14Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1441/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gunnebo AB ACIT (International बिधम/ PO Box No.5181, Goteberg, Taxation), Circle-2(3)(2) Vs. Sweden. Room No.2908, 29th Floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECG9613J (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Pratik Shah/Riddhi Maru Revenue by: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 20/07/…

Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 2/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, I.T.O., E-5, 1St Floor, Abhishek Park, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Attpp 7898 M Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable 7 Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar Vs ITO and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Similar view was express by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj) that though, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to admit or entertain additional claim during the assessment proceedings, however the appellate authority has such jurisdiction to admit such additional claim. Thus, keeping in view the plea of ld AR for the assessee to admit the additional claim/ additional commutation of income filed durin…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…computed in accordance with the provisions of law, even a fresh claim made during the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of any statutory bar should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mitesh Impex 367 ITR 85 held that the income tax proceedings cannot be treated as adverse proceedings and income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of law and further held that the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not put any fetters on the powers of Appellate authorities in entertaining a new claim. The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…computed in accordance with the provisions of law, even a fresh claim made during the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of any statutory bar should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mitesh Impex 367 ITR 85 held that the income tax proceedings cannot be treated as adverse proceedings and income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of law and further held that the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not put any fetters on the powers of Appellate authorities in entertaining a new claim. The…

Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Aviaiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 364/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.364/Srt/2017(Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4Th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat Pan : Afspa 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.364/SRT/2017(AY 2014-15) (Hearing in virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat PAN : AFSPA 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriManish J Shah, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 13.07.2022 उ"घोषणा क"…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tion has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-I, Mumbai v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bombay) and by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mitesh Impex reported in [2014] 367 ITR 85 (Gujarat). We, therefore, set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on these grounds and conclude that additional income offered by the assessee in his return of income requires to be reduced to Rs.33,89,582/- as against the amount of additional income of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return of income of the assessee for the AY 2012-13. Acco…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tion has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central-I, Mumbai v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bombay) and by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mitesh Impex reported in [2014] 367 ITR 85 (Gujarat). We, therefore, set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on these grounds and conclude that additional income offered by the assessee in his return of income requires to be reduced to Rs.33,89,582/- as against the amount of additional income of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return of income of the assessee for the AY 2012-13. Acco…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…s cited therein had held that instead of rejecting the additional claim of the assessee authority should make endeavor 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 [2014] 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…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…5/Bang/2020 Page 63 of 70 claim before the appellate authorities, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka, 2004 SCC Online Kar 142 (Kar) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd., 66 ITR 710 (SC) CIT v. Mitesh Impex, 367 ITR 85 (Guj) CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) P. Ltd., 140 ITR 705 (Mad) CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd., 2016-TIOL-292-HC-MUM-IT (Bom) 70. Therefore, it was submitted that the lower authorities have erred in wrongly applying the ratio of Goetze case and denying the claim of Appellant. 71. As regards, principles of consistency, the ld. AR submitted that th…