“additional evidence before CIT(A)”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A6 judgments

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

nthe appeal.\ne) CIT vs. Jind Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (2011) 335 ITR 43 (P &\nH)\nHeld “When the assesse files additional evidence before CIT(A), it is not\nnecessary that the CIT(A) must remand the matter to the Assessing\nOfficer, it depends on the nature

AKASH BHARAT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-33(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1635/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 56Section 68

part of the paper-book show that the Appellant had filed written submissions, paper-book as well as application for admission of additional evidence before CIT(A); the CIT(A) had also called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of the additional evidence; and the issues

SV AGRI TRADE LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2959/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

details/submission were filed by the Appellant. However, in appeal before the CIT(A), the Appellant made submissions and filed 12 additional evidence. The CIT(A) called for a remand report which was submitted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section ... basis of which additions were made, was impounded during survey at the premises of Glencore Agriculture India Private Limited. The Appellant had filed additional evidence before CIT(A) being letters dated 06/05/2019 (placed at page No. 137 of the paper-book) and 15/07/2019 (placed at page

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 54Section 54F

from the form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable. 6. It is submitted that Rule 46A is applicable only on filing of additional evidence before CIT(A) and not on filing of ‘revised grounds of appeal’. Therefore, there was no violation of Rule 46A as alleged in the grounds ... attached to the Vibhajan Patra at Paper book page No. 85) This evidence was filed Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules as additional evidence before CIT(A). Therefore, the portion which was received by the assessee pursuant to this Vibhajan Patra was Northern side of piece of land

SHRI AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 63/RPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

case. Reliance was placed on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of ACIT Vs Ascend Telcom Infrastructure (P) Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad), additional evidence before CIT(A), without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, is untenable in law. It was, therefore, the submission of ld.Sr

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

given by CIT(A) on this issue. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessee had produced additional evidence before CIT(A) giving breakup of sundry creditors as well as balance confirmations issued by the various parties (placed at page