Vardhan Birla v. CIT

204 ITR 312High Court1993#5227 most cited

What is Vardhan Birla v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an assessee's additional ground of appeal, even if the claim was not made before the Income Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the additional grounds are legal and based on facts already on record without requiring fresh investigation.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT · 204 ITR 312 · additional grounds · Tribunal jurisdiction · appellate proceedings · legal grounds · facts on record · National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Judgments citing Vardhan Birla v. CIT

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

…CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] - CIT v. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] - Ashok Vardhan Birla v, CWT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] - CIT v. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 59. Ld. DR objected for admission of the additional grounds as they were never raised before appellate proceedings and therefore cannot be admitted. 60. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that as the said additional grounds are legal grounds, whe…

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

…ITR 351 (Bom) • New India Industries Ltd., 207 ITR 1010 (Guj) • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT, 208 ITR 958 (Bom) • Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Brahadeeswaran, 163 ITR 680 (Mad) • Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT, 204 ITR 312 (Bom) • CIT v. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd., 141 ITR 622 (Bom) 5. We have heard both the parties on the admission of additional grounds. These additional grounds are already available on the record of lower authorities and do not require fresh investigation into facts. Therefore, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s Nationa…

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…wer Co. Ltd v CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC); (ii) Jute Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC); (iii)CIT v Nelliappan (S.) [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC); (iv)Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT |1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.); (v)Inaroo Ltd. v CIT [1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.); 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited (vi)Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT [19941 208 ITR 958 (Bom.); (vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal is that Scheme of the Income Tax Act contemplates that under section 144C…

S.S. ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 774/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…e from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, so long as these ITA Nos.5538,5677 & 774/MUM/2012 SS Oral Hygeine Products Private Ltd,: A.Y. 2007-08 grounds are in respect of the subject- matter of the entire tax proceedings." Inaroo Ltd. vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] Following its decision in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay Bigh Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the assessee‟s additional ground, even though the claim has not been made before either the Ineme Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Ashok…

SS ORAL HYGEINE PRODUCTS P.LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) ( NOW ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 5677/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…e from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, so long as these ITA Nos.5538,5677 & 774/MUM/2012 SS Oral Hygeine Products Private Ltd,: A.Y. 2007-08 grounds are in respect of the subject- matter of the entire tax proceedings." Inaroo Ltd. vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] Following its decision in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay Bigh Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the assessee‟s additional ground, even though the claim has not been made before either the Ineme Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Ashok…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. S.S ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 5538/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…e from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, so long as these ITA Nos.5538,5677 & 774/MUM/2012 SS Oral Hygeine Products Private Ltd,: A.Y. 2007-08 grounds are in respect of the subject- matter of the entire tax proceedings." Inaroo Ltd. vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] Following its decision in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay Bigh Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the assessee‟s additional ground, even though the claim has not been made before either the Ineme Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Ashok…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

…ch they have omitted to claim for some reason or other. 29. Further, we placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements of the Jurisdictional High Court: -Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. -vs- CIT (1994) 208 ITR 291 (Bom.) -Inaroo Ltd. -vs- CIT (1993) 204 ITR 312 (Bom.) -Sirdar Carbonic Gas Co. Ltd. -vs- (1993) 204 ITR 886 (Bom) -CIT-vs-Balapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 404 (Bom.) 19 ITA No. 716, 1419 & 1420/Mum/2020-Everest Industries Ltd. 30. From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it could be seen that an assessee can raise a new ground for the first time before the Appellat…

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 322/CHNY/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011 - 12 YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Plot No.DV1, SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(2), Phase II, Sirumangadu Village, Chennai. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 602 105. PAN : AAACY 2873L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Ajit Ku…

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument also stated that on identical set of facts, the ITAT has admitted similar additional grounds in the case of its gr…

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument also stated that on identical set of facts, the ITAT has admitted similar additional grounds in the case of its gr…

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument also stated that on identical set of facts, the ITAT has admitted similar additional grounds in the case of its gr…

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING P.LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument also stated that on identical set of facts, the ITAT has admitted similar additional grounds in the case of its gr…

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 6 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 -Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)” 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument also stated that on identical set of facts, the ITAT has admitted similar additional grounds in the case of its gr…

M/S. PGS PREMIERE CONFERENCING PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 2804/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.C Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 194JSection 251(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 31(3)(a)Section 40a

…be regarded as a forensic controversy between two parties ranged on opposite sides as adversaries. It must always be common ground between an assessee and the assessing officer that the assessment must be in accordance with the statute". Inaroo Ltd. vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Born)] Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's additional ground, even though the claim has not been made before either the Income Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. 1141 ITR 626 (Bor…

ZOETIS PHARMACEUTICALS RESEARCH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ Zoetis Pharmaceutical Acit 11(3)(2) Research P. Ltd., Mumbai 31, Level-3, V. Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcp5293L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Siddharth Shah Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 3715/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2016 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 2014-15. I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Siddharth ShahFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251

…IT v. S. Nelliappan [16 ITR 722 (SC)] 2. Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 3. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 383(SC) 4. Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 5. Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 6. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] The Ld. DR objected to the admission of the additional ground but however left the matter to the discretion of the Bench to decide as to admission of these additional grounds of appeal 4. We have heard both the rival parties and gone through the grounds of appeal no. 3 and 4 raised by…

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 667/MUM/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 195Section 248

…SC) - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v CIT [19981 229 ITR 383 (SC) - CIT v Nelliappan (S.) |1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) - Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) - Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT |1994| 208 ITR 958 (Bom.) - Inaroo Ltd. v CIT (1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.) - CIT v Goviodram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.) 5. Since the facts are identical, we are referring to the facts and figures from ITA No. 667/Mum/2016. Accordingly, we adjudicate the issues arising out of all the above grounds including the additional grounds as under: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 6. The assessee in this case ha…

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are allowed as above

ITA 599/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 195

…SC) - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v CIT [19981 229 ITR 383 (SC) - CIT v Nelliappan (S.) |1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) - Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) - Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT |1994| 208 ITR 958 (Bom.) - Inaroo Ltd. v CIT (1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.) - CIT v Goviodram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.) Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 5. Since the facts are identical, we are referring to the facts and figures from ITA No. 667/Mum/2016. Accordingly, we adjudicate this issue arising out of the above grounds as under: Apropos main ground of appeal no.1: Liability of TDS on transponder f…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] • CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] • Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] • Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and a…

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] • CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] • Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] • Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and a…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] • CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] • Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] • Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] • CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] The learned counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal of the submission of the leaned DR that the additional ground should not be admitted on account of delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and a…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Vardhan Birla v. CIT (204 ITR 312) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax