NTPC Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) SC, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (

292 ITR 493High Court2007#20335 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 153C Section 69A

Judgments citing NTPC Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) SC, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (

Amarjeet Kaur Bahri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2763/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 2763/Del/2022, (A.Y.2016-17)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

…raise at the hearing of the appeals an additional ground even without a formal amendment of the memorandum of appeal. - 116 ITR 554 (Cal). The Appellate Tribunal has therefore, the discretion to allow new contentions to be raised before it - 293 ITR 464 (MP), 292 ITR 493 (P & H) etc. As held in National Thermal Power Co Ltd vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), DIT (E) (Addl) vs Flt. Lt. Ranjan Dhall Charitable Trust (2017) 58 ITR (Trib) (SN) 47 (Delhi), Orissa Cement Ltd vs CIT (2001) 250 ITR 856 (Delhi) etc that where the issue raised as additional ground is one of law going to the route of the matter without the necessity…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…or the first time before the Tribunal and in support, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • National Thermal Power Co Ltd Vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 0383 • Wipro Finance ltd Vs. CIT [2022] 326 ITR 113 (SC) • Avery Cycle Industries Ltd Vs. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 493 (P&H) • Chitturi Subbanna Vs. Kudapa Subbanna & Others [1964] 1965 AIR 1325 (SC) • CIT Vs. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.) 6. It was further submitted that in respect of an issue for which all facts are on record, the assessee can raise ITA No. 296-Chd-2020 - Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi 5 alternate arguments a…

Nagravision India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1536/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pradhan Dass, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR-I)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…fore the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the Assessee, yet the same is not a bar to raise the issue in second appeal as held by the IT(TP)A No.1536/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 17 Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Avery Cycle Industries Ltd Vs. CIT 292 ITR 493(P & H). The issue is purely a legal issue and can be decided on facts already available on record. Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed. 4. As far as the other grounds of appeal are concerned, the issue raised therein is with regard to determination of arm's length price (ALP) in respect of international transaction of rendering software developme…

Dilip G. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3869/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N. K. Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3869/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dilip G. Mehta Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Flat No.9, 5Th Floor, Anila 18(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. Niwas, Behind Waman Hari Pethe Shop, Gokhale Road(North), Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaupm3770D

For Appellant: Shri Krish B. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

…lier and were general in nature. The additional grounds can be taken at the time of pendency of the appeal in view of the law settled in NTPC Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) SC, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (187 ITR 688,694) SC, Avery Cycles Inds Ltd. Vs. CIT(292 ITR 493) (P&H). Therefore in the said circumstances we are of the view that declining the additional grounds for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) is not justifiable. Therefore without commenting upon the merits of the case we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional grounds which has been raised b…