UOP LIC v. Additional Director of Income

108 ITD 186Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#6809 most cited

What is UOP LIC v. Additional Director of Income authority for?

The Tribunal can allow the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage if the assessee demonstrates a substantial cause for not producing it before the lower authorities. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax · 108 ITD 186 · additional evidence · appellate stage · substantial cause · discretion of Tribunal · judicial discretion

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 1963Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 72Section 92C

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidenceinternational transactionsection 24section 25transferopportunity of being heardindiabusinessdocumentpersoninteresttotal income

Judgments citing UOP LIC v. Additional Director of Income

Mohammad Zuber Ibrhim Patel, Taloja vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 469/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 107Section 147Section 148

…nd investment in the immovable property, which go to the root of the issue in dispute. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) reported in 108 ITD 186 held that the Tribunal can allow the additional evidence if assessee satisfies for any substantial cause in not producing before lower authorities. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public a…

Mohammad Zuber Ibrhim Patel, Taloja vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 468/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 147Section 148

…nd investment in the immovable property, which go to the root of the issue in dispute. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) reported in 108 ITD 186 held that the Tribunal can allow the additional evidence if assessee satisfies for any substantial cause in not producing before lower authorities. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public a…

Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limted, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 9344/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…rt in the case of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010), 2. ITAT in the case of Global Turbine Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, ITA No. 3484/Del/2011 3. VA Tech Escher Wyss FlovelPvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 6226/Del/2012 4. UOP LLC(108 ITD 186), 5. Global Turbine Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (ITA No. 5586/Del/2011) 6. JCB India Limited vs ACIT (ITA No.5200/Del/2010) 7. Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (I.T.A .No.- 1942/Del/2011) 8. Vodafone India Services PrivateLtd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7514/Mum/2013) 11. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of the DRP. T…

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

…Rule 29 provides that for ‘any other substantial cause’ also the Tribunal can allow the additional evidences. The decision of the Delhi Bench ‘F’ in the case of UOP LIC v Additional Director of Income tax, International taxation, Circle 2(2) New Delhi (2007) 108 ITD 186 is relevant where in para 30 it is observed; “30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public and allowing of production of additional evidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said discretion, however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrari…

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

…Rule 29 provides that for ‘any other substantial cause’ also the Tribunal can allow the additional evidences. The decision of the Delhi Bench ‘F’ in the case of UOP LIC v Additional Director of Income tax, International taxation, Circle 2(2) New Delhi (2007) 108 ITD 186 is relevant where in para 30 it is observed; “30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public and allowing of production of additional evidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said discretion, however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrari…

Usg Boral Building Products(India) Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8446/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Knauf India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, (Earlier Known As Usg Boral Ward-27(2), Building Products (India) Pvt.Ltd.), New Delhi. S-217, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Park, South Delhi, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcl1984A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ca, Gopal Agarwal, Ca & Shubham Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 37

…der Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and taking into consideration while adjudicating the appeal. Further, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional bench of the ITAT in the case of UOP LLC vs Additional Director of Income-tax, International Tax: (2007) 108 ITD 186 (Del) had laid down inter- alia the following principles as regards admissibility of additional evidence:  Evidence which is not only helpful but also relevant to decide the issue shall be adduced by the Appellate Tribunal.  Where evidence proposed to be filed was not available with the party seeking to rely on the additional evidence at the ti…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, R.R. Dist, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1464/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…umed the search is illegal as contested by the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of Pooranmal 93 ITR 505 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that material covered in a search can be used in the assessment proceedings. In the case of UOP LLC 108 ITD 186 (Del.) the ITAT held that there is no bar for the Revenue to produce any additional evidence suo-motu before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. In the case of Venkat Ramaiah (1963) AIR 126 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that additional evidences can be admitted if there is some thing absurd to be uncovered. FINDING BY THE T…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, R.R. Dist, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1463/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…umed the search is illegal as contested by the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of Pooranmal 93 ITR 505 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that material covered in a search can be used in the assessment proceedings. In the case of UOP LLC 108 ITD 186 (Del.) the ITAT held that there is no bar for the Revenue to produce any additional evidence suo-motu before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. In the case of Venkat Ramaiah (1963) AIR 126 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that additional evidences can be admitted if there is some thing absurd to be uncovered. FINDING BY THE T…

Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, R.R.Dist vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1457/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…umed the search is illegal as contested by the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of Pooranmal 93 ITR 505 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that material covered in a search can be used in the assessment proceedings. In the case of UOP LLC 108 ITD 186 (Del.) the ITAT held that there is no bar for the Revenue to produce any additional evidence suo-motu before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. In the case of Venkat Ramaiah (1963) AIR 126 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that additional evidences can be admitted if there is some thing absurd to be uncovered. FINDING BY THE T…

Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, R.R.Dist vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1456/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…umed the search is illegal as contested by the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of Pooranmal 93 ITR 505 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that material covered in a search can be used in the assessment proceedings. In the case of UOP LLC 108 ITD 186 (Del.) the ITAT held that there is no bar for the Revenue to produce any additional evidence suo-motu before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. In the case of Venkat Ramaiah (1963) AIR 126 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that additional evidences can be admitted if there is some thing absurd to be uncovered. FINDING BY THE T…

Bansal Rice Traders, Sangrur vs. ITO-Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

…4. Acknowledgment Slip 5. Computation Sheet 6. Rectified form 26AS Reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Tek Ram (Dead) through LRs Vs. CIT 357 ITR 133 (SC) • CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H) • UOP LLC Vs. ADIT, ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench 108 ITD 186 • CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) • Electra (Jaipur)(P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 26 ITD 236 (Del) • CIT vs. Parimal Kanti Chanda 291 ITR 77 (Gauhati) • Hingora Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2109/Ahd/2008 (Ahd Trib)) • DCIT Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal in ITA No. 374/Agra/2010 (Agra Trib) • DCIT vS. Rohini Builder…

Shri Narotam Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 307/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…t [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Delhi) • R.S.S.. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons V. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) • ITO V. B.N. Bhattachayra [ 1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal.) (iv) Decision of ITAT, Delhi ‘I’ Bench in the case of UOP LIC Vs. Additional Director of Income reported in 108 ITD 186 in which it was held that the additional evidence should be admitted. If it to may pronounce the judgment but all for any other substantiate cause and in this case, the department was not in appeal, but still the department evidence was admitted since it has bearing in the judgment of the above said case. (v) Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Cour…

Shri Tarlochan Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…t [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Delhi) • R.S.S.. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons V. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad.) • ITO V. B.N. Bhattachayra [ 1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal.) (iv) Decision of ITAT, Delhi ‘I’ Bench in the case of UOP LIC Vs. Additional Director of Income reported in 108 ITD 186 in which it was held that the additional evidence should be admitted. If it to may pronounce the judgment but all for any other substantiate cause and in this case, the department was not in appeal, but still the department evidence was admitted since it has bearing in the judgment of the above said case. (v) Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Cour…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…ls refer to Rule 30 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 which prescribe circumstances under which, additional evidence could be admitted before the Tribunal. Also reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486 (MP), UOP LLC v. Addl. DIT 108 ITD 186 (Delhi-ITAT) and ITO & Others reported in 112 ITR 423 (Cal). Thus it is submitted that the additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal are in form of supporting documents for the primary claim of the appellant that the credit card expenses were incurred for business purpose of the employer and fringe benefit tax on the same has already been…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 17(2)(iv)

…0015 (Bombay)] (iii) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanut Singh [(2001) 252 ITR 0528 (Rajasthan)] (iv) Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT [Civil appeal No.11385-11386 of 2016 (SC)] (v) Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. ITAT [(2000) 244 ITR 303 (Delhi)] (vi) UOP LLC v. Addl.Director of IT [(2007) 108 ITD 186 (Delhi)] 8. Now coming to the merits of the case we find that no details whatsoever regarding the credit card expense was submitted before the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of the impugned amount in the hands of 7 ITA No.7652/Mum/2014. Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf. the assessee was fully justified. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT(A) has admitte…

Seven N Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, C.I.T, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM ITA No. 6192/Del./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Seven N Consulting Pvt. Vs ITO Ltd. Ward – 23(1) 7N India, 81, Sec-44, New Delhi Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7695B Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. Sh. Harpreet Singh, Adv. Sh. Rohan Khare, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, C.I.T, DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26/10/2015 of the AO pa…

UOP LIC v. Additional Director of Income (108 ITD 186) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax