How many judgments cite VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr?

108 judgments on BharatTax cite VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr (360 ITR 682), spanning 2014 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(2), Section 234B.

VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr

360 ITR 682High Court2014#997 most cited

What is VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr authority for?

The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, particularly when those questions are purely legal and jurisdictional.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT · assessment proceedings · questions of law · Tribunal jurisdiction · National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 234B Section 132(4)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 32(1)(i)closely held company cost plus method accumulated profits section 43a related party transaction initial assessment year section 80h deduction under section 80ia enhanced compensation section 80a(5)

Judgments citing VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT & Annr

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…prohibition on the jurisdiction of an authority to consider fresh claim(s) made by the assessee:- i) Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT: 187 ITR 688 (SC); ii) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.: 306 ITR 42 (Del.); iii) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd: 360 ITR 682 (Del); iv) CIT v. Ramco International: 332 ITR 306 (P&H); v) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 498(Bom)/349 ITR 336: vi) CIT v Arvind Mills LTD: ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: I 15 TTJ 752 (Del ITAT) (TM); ix) Aish…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

M/S. Jindal World Wide Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabadq

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2316/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…e those which became available on account of change of circumstances of law but which were even available when the return was filed. 9 . AY. 2014-15 36. The Delhi High Court once again in recent judgment in the case of CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [20141 360 ITR 682/F2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 observed that the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. With these observations Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the assessing officer rejec…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…ng judicial precedents and humbly request the Tribunal to admit the additional ground of appeal: a. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] b. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [306 ITR 42 (Delhi HC)] c. CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [360 ITR 682 (Delhi HC)] d. CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [169 Taxman 40 (Delhi HC)] e. Gadore Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [238 ITR 268 (Delhi HC)] 43. The learned authorised representative reiterated the above facts stated in its application for admission of the additional ground vehemently submitted that the additional ground goes to the root of the ma…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110024. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aqkps8457P Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-7, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chowdhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “जी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ. बी आर आर कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.419/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110024. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AQKPS8457P vs The DCIT, Central Circle-7, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. H.K.Chowdhary, CIT DR स…

ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1964/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

…(P.) Ltd's case (supra). In Influence's case (supra) after referring to the earlier case law, it was held as under: '7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra),decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in the following words:— "In Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Asses…

Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1532/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Smt. Mamta Singh, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 306/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 2Section 45

…ers & Share Holders Pvt Ltd (2012) 3491TR 336 (Annexure D). b)Pr CIT v/s Western India Shipyard Ltd (2015)379 ITR 289{Del) (Annexure E) . c) CIT Vis Jay Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42{Del) (Annexure F) . d) CIT v/s Sem Global Securities Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del) (Annexure H). e) CIT V/s BG Shirke Construction Technology Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 371 (Bom) (Annexure H) 4. The appellant, therefore, submits that in view of the above legal position regarding admissibility of fresh claim before the appellate authorities, the order passed by CIT(A) by applying ratio in case of Goetz India (supra) deserves…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(3)Section 147

…the matter and for the M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. just decision of the case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. c) CIT vs Sam Global Securities Ltd reported in 360 ITR 682 (Del) d) CIT vs Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd reported in 396 ITR 251 (Mad) 12.6.1. In view of the aforesaid decisions of various High Courts including the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act can be admitted by way of an additional ground before us for the respective assessment yea…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…he Assessing Officer for the same reason. 10. The Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 (Del.) 11. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We find that under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, a person assessable on his total income computed as per the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to compute income as per the provisions of the Act after…

Sri.Suhail Ameer Manappat, Kochi vs. The DCIT(Int.Taxation), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Rajinark P

Section 143(3)

…n record before the Assessing Authority. 6.2 The statutory function of assessment is quasi-judicial. The Assessing Authority needs to be just and fair in determining the tax liability. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 has held that assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. If any mistake is found in the computation filed by the 5 Sri.Suhail Ameer Ahmed. assessee, it is the lawful obligation cast on the Assessing Authority to correct it. It is immaterial, whether such correction benefits the assessee or Revenue. 6.3 In a case, Rachna S Talreja V s.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Gurnam Arora, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 158/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Gurnam Arora, Tax, Central Circle-28, 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community New Delhi Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K.-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpa1064F Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Vide: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 07.10.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 80

…. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) there have been a number of decisions that have held that just because the assessee could not file a revise return, the claim made by the assessee cannot be ignored. 4 Gurnam Arora In the case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 Delhi, it has been held that if the assessee files a revised computation of income before the AO during the assessment proceedings the same needs to be considered by the AO and the claim of the assessee should be verified and examined. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied on a number of previous judgments. The appeal filed by the revenue in th…

M/S Gmr Energy Trading Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2065/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Gmr Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant Pan:Aadcg0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.GMR Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant PAN:AADCG0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sunil Jain, CA. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 14/11/2018 Date of pronouncement : 20/11/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Incom…

The Kangra Central Co-Op Bank Ltd vs. Joint Commisioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Cit(A) Who Also Rejected The Claim Holding That The Claim Had Not Been Made By Way Of Revised Return. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Claimed The

For Appellant: Shri Ahwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 43B

…Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. reported at [1986] 160 ITR; judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. reported at [20141 360 ITR 682 (Delhi) and order of Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-II Vs. Jai Parabolics Springs Ltd. reported at [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the assessment order para 5 shows that the factum of payment of bonus/P…

M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Grower'S Federation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raokarnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd., No.11, Blue Cross Chambers, Infantry Road Cross, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaak 1189 M Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 8(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 251(1)(a)Section 254Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Karnataka Co-operative Oil seeds growers Federation Ltd., No.11, Blue Cross Chambers, Infantry Road Cross, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant PAN:AAAK 1189 M Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/10/2018 Date of pronouncement : 10/10/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-co-operative society directed against…

M/S Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…take the advantage of ignorance of the assessee and he has to grant relief which is available to the assessee as per law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). 6 M/s. Bhandri Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has vehemently opposed to the contention of the assessee and submitted that the assessee itself has offered the said income as business income and, therefore, in the absence of revised return, the AO had no jurisdiction to accept the claim of the assessee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

…pon the following case laws :- (i) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT, Bombay 15 SOT 252 (Mum) (ii) Sam Global Securities Ltd. vs. ITO (DELHI) I.T.A. No. 1760/Del/2009. (iii) Kanpur Coal Syndicate vs. CIT 53 ITR 225 (iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 (Delhi High Court). (v) NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court). (vi) Sushil Kumar Das vs. ITO (ITA No. 193/Kol/2011) (vii) NHK Spring Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the case laws cited by us, your honours may kindly accept the claim of short term capital loss of Rs.1,37,89,600 of the assessee claimed…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…laims need not be those which became available on account of change of circumstances of law but which were even available when the return was filed. 36. The Delhi High Court once again in recent judgment in the case of CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 observed that the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. With these observations Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the assessing officer rejec…

ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol vs. M/S. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2130/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…and benefits granted to appellants. 15. The appellant gave exhaustive submission on the matter W.r.t decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323. It was stated that the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sam Global Securities Ltd. (201) 360 ITR 682(Del) stands in their favour and the Hon. High Court of Delhi has considered the decision reported in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323. However, in the case of Sam Global Securities Ltd., the claim for additional deduction was made by them before Assessing Officer but if1 this case, the claim was not made before Assessing Officer. H…