Rallis India Ltd. v. CIT

374 ITR 462High Court2015#24867 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Rallis India Ltd. v. CIT

M/S GODS GIFT LANDMARK,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 600/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43CSection 50C(2)

…vincing reason for the same. 5.6 Then, the appellant has attempted to dispute the addition by saying that the books of accounts were not rejected by the AO. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision in the case of Rallis India Ltd Vs CIT [2015] 374 ITR 462 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has observed as given below: "13. It is undisputed that the power of a CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. In fact, the CIT(A) can do what the Assessing Officer can do and has failed to do as held by the Apex Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 " 3 M/s. Gods Gif…

DSOB CLASS OF 64 CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms stated above

ITA 1417/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

…uld not be made u/s 143(1 )(a) of the Act. In this regard, it is to be noted that appellate proceedings are extension of assessment proceedings. Further, the appellant stated that proper opportunity was not given. In the case of Rallis India Ltd Vs CIT [2015] 374 ITR 462, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has observed as given below: "13. It is undisputed that the power of a CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. In fact, the CIT(A) can do what the Assessing Officer can do and has failed to do as held by the Apex Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225.” Accordingly, during the app…

ITO 3(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. THEBROMA FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)(3) M/S. Theobroma Foods R.No. 672, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Jamuna Sagar, V. M.K. Road, 59/60, Shahid Bhagat New Marine Lines, Singh Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct0588K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Rohan Deshpande सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 765/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.10.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-344/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30

…every case on additional evidences submitted for the first time before learned CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee would rely on following case laws: a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Rallis India Limited v. CIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 462(Bom.) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Manish Buildwell Private Limited reported in (2011) 245 CTR 397(Del.) c) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate in Civil Appeal No. 673 of 1963, judgment dated 30.04.1964 d) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Hede Consultancy…