PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd.

396 ITR 677High Court2017#1587 most cited

What is PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds of appeal before the appellate authorities, including the Tribunal or High Court, provided such grounds are purely legal in nature and arise from facts already available on record.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. · Britannia Industries · additional ground of appeal · raising new legal ground · appellate authorities · ITAT · High Court · facts on record · assessment procedure · Section 143(2) · Section 147 · Section 263

Also reported as

145 Taxmann.com 618

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 1961Section 144Section 68Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 119(2)(a)section 147ofsection 10(26)revision u/s 263section 119(2)section 139(5)complete scrutinypreponderance of probabilitysection 119section 151asection 40a(3)limited scrutiny

Judgments citing PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd.

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 526/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…isions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The Id. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either o…

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 525/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 524/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 523/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 522/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Barik Biswas, Basirhat vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 521/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Barik Biswas, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1094/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263

…sions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either…

Shri Abhinaw Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-47(6), Kolkata

ITA 688/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ion of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 03. The Id. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 10.08.2018, has been issued in violation of CBDT instruction as cited above and therefore, consequential proceedings including the assessment framed are invalid and bad in law. The Id. AR in defense of his argument relied on the decision of this t…

Sajal Biswas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, WD 24(1), Hooghly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1244/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm I.T.O, Wd 24(1), Hooghly Sajal Biswas C/O. S.N.Ghosh& Associates, Aayakar Bhawan, Hooghly, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Khadina More, G.T.Road, 3Rd Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203. Floor, P.O- Chinsurah, P.S. Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Chinsurah, Hooghly, West Bengal, 712101 West Bengal, 700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awppb6287R Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Sajal Biswas; A.Y. 2017-18 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue was not raised before any of the authorities below and therefore, may kindly be restored to the file of any of the authorities below for adjudication. 06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional gr…

Frontier Warehousing P Ltd. (for, Bengal Waterproof Ltd., Since Merged), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1795/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle 7(1) Frontier Warehousing P. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4A, Mms Chambers, Counsil House Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb2875R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

…e ld. AR relied on the decisions namely i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). . 04. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue was not raised before any of the authorities below and therefore, may kindly be restored to the file of any of the authorities below for adjudication. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional…

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.110/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year :2017–18) Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal 1, Agrawal Estate, Amravati Road ……………. Appellant Wadi, Nagpur 440 023 PAN – ABGPA3839E v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Nagpur–2, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 06/01/2025 Date of Order – 21/03/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The instant appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order d…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…e claim of deduction not claimed before the AO by filing the revised return and tribunal in exercising of its power u/s 254 justified in accepting this claim though no revised return u/s 139(5) was fled before the AO also refer CIT v/s Britania Industries Ltd 396 ITR 677(Cal.) In the case of Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. JCIT in ITA Nos. 1073 & 1074/JP/2018 Mar 15, 2022 (2022) 64 CCH 0234 Jaipur Trib it has been held Penalty—Penalty for failure to answer question, sign statement, furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspection etc.—Assessee is an individual and having business of Building construction an…

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

…elied on the following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 And also Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal) The Ld. A.R submitted that in the above decisions it has been held that even if the claim was not made in the return and/or before the AO or CIT(A) could be made before the appellate authority. 6 I.T.A. No.434/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd. 9. The Ld. D.R on the other hand submitted that the assessee…

Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Acit(Osd), Ward-1(2), Omaxe Square, Plot No.14, 3Rd Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Floor, Jasola District Centre, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn8914D Assessee By : Shri Amit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…isions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2010. Thereafter, the ld. AO received the information from Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-1, Ward-1(2), which states that huge cash was deposited in the different branches of ICICI in Kol…

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITAno.76/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh no.3, Suboda Colony ……………. Appellant VidarbhaMahavidyalaya Road Amravati 444 604 PAN – AIWPD6908J v/s Principal Commissioner ……………. Respondent of Income Tax, Nagpur Assessee by :ShriK.P. Dewani Revenue by :Shri Sandeep Salunke Date of Hearing – 11/09/2024 Date of Order – 20/09/2024 O R D E R PERK.M. ROY, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 15/03/2022, passed under…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…e time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming that the incentive subsidies in question be treated as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in the original return, following the decision in CIT v. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal) as well as the view taken that the subsidies were capital receipts and not income liable to tax, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 254 was justified in allowing this claim though no revised return under section 139(5) was filed before the Assessing Officer.” This, it can be seen that the High Court while dealing with the q…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…e time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming that the incentive subsidies in question be treated as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in the original return, following the decision in CIT v. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal) as well as the view taken that the subsidies were capital receipts and not income liable to tax, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 254 was justified in allowing this claim though no revised return under section 139(5) was filed before the Assessing Officer.” This, it can be seen that the High Court while dealing with the q…

M/S. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile Ghosh Finance Ltd), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

…nce Ltd. v. CIT, [[2022] 443 ITR 250 (SC)], (ii) International Tractors Ltd. v. DCIT, [[2021] 435 ITR 85 (Del)], (iii) PCIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd., [[2021] 128 taxmann.com 1 (Karnataka)], (iv) CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd., [[2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal)], (v) CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., [[2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad)], (vi) CIT v. Ashok Kurien, [2016 (11) TMI 122 Bombay HC], (vii) PCIT v. Gujarat Gas Trading Co. Ltd., [2016 (6) TMI 599 Gujarat HC] (viii) CIT v. Faze Three Ltd., [2017 (3) TMI 1390-Bombay HC], (ix) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd., [2011 (11) TMI 366 DELHI HCJ, and (x)…

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUn zdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.511/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Silver Wings Life Spaces DCIT Vs. Plot No. 3, 4 Commercial Circle-01, Complex, Behind Madhushree Kota Hotel Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kota LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:ACSFS 4581 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar G…

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Kush Kanodia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 45Section 80G

…in the course of assessment, is admissible in absence of such claim being raised in the return of income. For this, we gainfully refer to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the appellant’s own case which is reported in 396 ITR 677. In the decided case the Hon’ble Court after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Goetze (India) Ltd (284 ITR 323) and Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (111 ITR 1) has held that the appellate authority has the power to entertain new claim if the grounds raised are bonafide. Thus, in principle, we agree that the appel…