R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand v. CIT

327 ITR 626Reported decision2010#8405 most cited

What is R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand v. CIT authority for?

The court admits additional grounds before the Tribunal if they raise a new issue not considered by lower authorities and the assessee was not in a position to raise it earlier.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand v. CIT · additional grounds · new issue · Tribunal · assessee · delay · admission of additional grounds

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysiscorporate guaranteeright to receive

Judgments citing R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand v. CIT

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ad…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ad…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ad…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ad…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Gulf Piping Company, Wll, Abu Dhabi, Uae, Dehradun vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1330/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Ongc Ltd [As Representative Assessee Vs. The D.C.I.T Of Gulf Piping Co. Wll, Abu Dhabi, Uae International Taxation C/O Ongc Ltd, Corporate Tax Division Circle - Ii Tel Bhawan, Dehradun Dehradun Pan : Aaaco 1598 A [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

…ision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat General Re-insurance Co. ltd 81 ITR 303[ Del] and HCL Technologies Vs. ACIT 377 ITR 483 [DEL]. 8. Moreover, the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Enron Espat Services Inv. 327 ITR 626 has categorically held that if the receipt by a non-resident is exempt from tax under the relevant DTAA, the said amount cannot be brought to tax u/s 44BB of the Act. 9. Considering the facts of the case in totality in the light of the judicial decisions referred to hereinabove, we hold that receipts of the non residents are not taxable in India…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…efore the Tribunal or consequently before the AO could not operate as a bar to the assessee to challenge the jurisdictional authority of the AO u/s.158BC of the Act. ITA/2913/Mum/2015; M/s. Oricon Enterprises Limited 5.5.d.The Hon’ble Uttrakhand High Court (327 ITR 626)has also dealt with similar issue.Matter relates to AY.s 1996-97, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03.The brief facts giving rise to the appeals filed by the Revenue were that the assessee, a non-resident company, filed its return of income declaring nil income.The assessee-non-resident company is a company incorporated in the United States of America. Dur…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…rendered in the context of provisions of the Act and did not deal with a Treaty situation. The said decisions have been distinguished in the later decision rendered by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Inc: 195 TAXMAN 342/ 327 ITR 626. In that case, ONGC, Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) and EOGIL had entered into a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for exploration of oil with respect to contract area identified as Panna and Mukta fields. The PSC was laid before both Houses of the Parliament and was approved in terms of section 42 of the Act. The assessee, an American company wh…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1811/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1811/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…tion and decide the same on merit. 5. The Ld.counsel for the assessee placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO (1959) 36 ITR 350, judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. (2010) 327 ITR 626 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in HCL Technologies v. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 483. The Ld.counsel has also submitted that the amalgamation was with effect from 31.12.2009. The assessee acquired the brand before the amalgamation. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it cannot be said that it is a colourable device for acquisition of 5 I.T.…

Emerald Jewel Industry India Limited, Coimbatore vs. Addl. CIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1491/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1811/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…tion and decide the same on merit. 5. The Ld.counsel for the assessee placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO (1959) 36 ITR 350, judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. (2010) 327 ITR 626 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in HCL Technologies v. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 483. The Ld.counsel has also submitted that the amalgamation was with effect from 31.12.2009. The assessee acquired the brand before the amalgamation. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it cannot be said that it is a colourable device for acquisition of 5 I.T.…

ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 290/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation In…

Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7415/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation In…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 668/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation In…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation In…

R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand v. CIT (327 ITR 626) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax