Siksha v. CIT

194 ITR 548High Court1992#960 most cited

What is Siksha v. CIT authority for?

Tribunals should consider questions of law arising from facts on record, even if raised for the first time, if the issue is jurisdictional and requires no further fact-finding.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Siksha v. CIT · 194 ITR 548 · additional ground · jurisdictional issue · question of law · facts on record · NTPC Ltd. v. CIT · tribunal powers · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 120(4)(b)section 2(7a)closely held companyaccumulated profitsrelated party transactionsection 120section 292bsection 292section 260section 260aassistant director

Judgments citing Siksha v. CIT

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…diction, there was no question of levy of penalty, therefore, it was open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against levy of penalty. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of investors Industrial Corporation 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) has held that the assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate reopening of assessment proceedings before the CIT (A) in the second round of proceedings even though it has not raised the same before earlier proceedings before the AO or in the earlier appeal. 13. In the light of various case laws as cited abov…

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…O NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited Sr. No. Ld. DR's Submissions Assessee's Rebuttal (see Para nos. 4 to 6.6 at internal Page nos. 7 to 27 of the order copy provided) The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. 194 ITR 548 has held that additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of an officer could be raised at any stage of the appellate proceeding including the second round though the said issue had not been raised in the first round of proceeding. Issues raised by the additional grounds in the present case questions the validity of the assessment order passed…

Cadmatic Oy, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax), Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 195

…grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, therefore, we are of the considered view that investigation into fresh facts is not required in the present case. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s CIT, [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Bom.) held that the ground by which the jurisdiction to make the assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time, even in the second round of proceedings. Therefore, in view of the above, since the issue raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds of appeal is a legal issue, which can be decided on th…

Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 1556/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1555/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gajendra Singh, vs. DCIT, CC, C/o Praveen K. Agarwal & Associates, Ghaziabad. D-17, Third Floor, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) DCIT, CC, vs. Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad. Village Pavi Sadakpur Loni, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem…

Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 1555/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1555/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gajendra Singh, vs. DCIT, CC, C/o Praveen K. Agarwal & Associates, Ghaziabad. D-17, Third Floor, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) DCIT, CC, vs. Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad. Village Pavi Sadakpur Loni, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem…

Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 1554/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1555/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gajendra Singh, vs. DCIT, CC, C/o Praveen K. Agarwal & Associates, Ghaziabad. D-17, Third Floor, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) DCIT, CC, vs. Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad. Village Pavi Sadakpur Loni, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem…

DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad vs. Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 1498/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1555/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gajendra Singh, vs. DCIT, CC, C/o Praveen K. Agarwal & Associates, Ghaziabad. D-17, Third Floor, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) DCIT, CC, vs. Gajendra Singh, Ghaziabad. Village Pavi Sadakpur Loni, Ghaziabad – 201 102 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : BAUPS7053L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2956/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2955/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2954/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2953/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2952/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2951/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2950/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2949/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2948/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2947/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2946/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2945/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering quest…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaizabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 21/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…