Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT

34 ITR 342High Court1958#4037 most cited

What is Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT · section 251 · section 251(2) · CIT(A) powers · enhancement of income · assessment proceedings · appellate authority · doctrine of merger

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mergersection 80hhcsection 251(2)section 251section 32section 37(1)section 254section 154income-tax officerfirst appealsection 263section 26

Judgments citing Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…ing decisions he submitted that the CIT (A) has no power to enhance the assessment for income from new source :- 1. CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 2. CIT vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 34 ITR 342 (Bom) 4. CIT vs Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) 5. CIT vs. Sardari Lai & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) 6. CIT vs Changanlal Kailas & Co. 19 Taxmann 536 (Mad) 7. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 197 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) 8. CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta) 9. CIT vs. BP Sherafuddin 399 ITR 524 (Kerela) 22. Referring to the following deci…

Prem Manohar Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kanpur

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 512/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…onsidered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead, the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. The Ld. AR has relied on the various case laws more preciously that of Shapoorji Pattonji Mistry v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 342 (Bom.) (confirmed by the Apex Court in CIT v. Shapoorji Pattonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the powers of the CIT(A) held that CIT(A) was not empower to enhance an income on an issue which was not the subject matter of the assessment. The ratio laid down in the judgment of full Bench of D…

Prem Manohar Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kanpur

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 511/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…onsidered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead, the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. The Ld. AR has relied on the various case laws more preciously that of Shapoorji Pattonji Mistry v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 342 (Bom.) (confirmed by the Apex Court in CIT v. Shapoorji Pattonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the powers of the CIT(A) held that CIT(A) was not empower to enhance an income on an issue which was not the subject matter of the assessment. The ratio laid down in the judgment of full Bench of D…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…een accepted in India as its true import, particularly as that view is also reasonably possible. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC was not competent to enhance the assessment of the appellant.”—Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom) : (1958) 11 TAX (3) - 149 : TC7R.580 affirmed  CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (pages 649- 654 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “The AAC has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3), to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the ITO and which is not disclosed either in the re…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…een accepted in India as its true import, particularly as that view is also reasonably possible. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC was not competent to enhance the assessment of the appellant.”—Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom) : (1958) 11 TAX (3) - 149 : TC7R.580 affirmed  CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (pages 649- 654 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “The AAC has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3), to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the ITO and which is not disclosed either in the re…

Shri Ramesh Kumar Pabbi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5594/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

…ppeals) cannot enhance the assessment on the matter which is not arising out of the assessment proceedings. He has submitted that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoor Ji Pallonji Mistry Vs. CIT 34 ITR 342 and judgment of full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. reported in 251 ITR 864. He has also submitted that similar issue have been considered and decided by ITAT Delhi Bench in the case Bikram Singh Vs. DCIT reported in 82 taxmann.com 230 in which above judgments have been considered and the Tribunal in p…

Sh. Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3522/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Bikram Singh Vs Dcit 8/34, Mehram Nagar Circle 15 (1), New Delhi New Delhi Abkps5232P (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(2)

…was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead, the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. The Ld. Pallonji Mistry Vs. CIT reported in 34 ITR 342 (confirmed by the Apex Court in 44 ITR 891) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the powers of the CIT(A) held that CIT(A) was not empower to enhance an income on an issue which was not the subject matter of the assessment. The ratio laid down in the judgment of full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal…

Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/322/2005HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 132Section 158Section 158BSection 68

…the assessment order, it would clearly follow that the Assessing Officer had “determined” the same in the course of assessment by deciding not to make any addition. 23. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Vs. Shapporji Pallonji Mistry 34 ITR 342 (which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court), the Bombay High Court clarified that “source” of income would not mean source in the sense of head of income as used in the Income-Tax Act but would mean a specific source from which a particular income spank or arose. It was clarified that:- “…….If a particular source or item of income had been…

Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-322/2005HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 132Section 158Section 158BSection 68

…the assessment order, it would clearly follow that the Assessing Officer had “determined” the same in the course of assessment by deciding not to make any addition. 23. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Vs. Shapporji Pallonji Mistry 34 ITR 342 (which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court), the Bombay High Court clarified that “source” of income would not mean source in the sense of head of income as used in the Income-Tax Act but would mean a specific source from which a particular income spank or arose. It was clarified that:- “…….If a particular source or item of income had been…