7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR

56 ITR 67Supreme Court of India1965#811 most cited

What is 7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR authority for?

A taxpayer can raise a plea that their income is not taxable, even if they have previously made an agreement regarding the quantification of taxable income. The principle of estoppel does not apply against a settled position in law.

127

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mr. P. Firm · Muar · 56 ITR 67 · SC · settled position of law · estoppel · taxable income · consent does not confer jurisdiction · voluntary disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)annual letting valuecaptive service providerjoint development agreementjdapercentage completion methodannual valueworking capital adjustmentsection 92bsection 2(47)right to receivearms length price

Judgments citing 7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR

Shri Narayan Rao Hebri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/166/2025HC Karnataka20 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…of Income-tax vs. H.R. Basavaraj, [2012] 20 taxmann.com 515 (Karnataka) (xiii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. K. Venkatesh Dutt, [2009] 319 ITR 331 (Karnataka) (xiv) Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras vs. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar, [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) (xv) Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2019] 416 ITR 1 (SC) (xvi) National Co-operative Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, [2020] 427 ITR 288 (SC) (xvii)Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sumitomo Corporation [2016] 382 ITR 75 (Delhi) 12. Section 139 o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 14 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 14 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded…

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 14 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 14 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded…

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 14 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…e of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 358 (Ker. – HC) (iv) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2007) 163 taxman 430 (Del. – HC) Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. (v) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P.) Ltd. (2005) 93 ITD 120 (Pune ITAT) (vi) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai ITAT) 6. Being a…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…e of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 358 (Ker. – HC) (iv) CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2007) 163 taxman 430 (Del. – HC) Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. (v) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P.) Ltd. (2005) 93 ITD 120 (Pune ITAT) (vi) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai ITAT) 6. Being a…

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…s earned in Karachi. What has, therefore, to be determined is whether, notwithstanding the apportionment made by the respondent in the profit and loss statements, the deduction is admissible under the law." 34. In the case of CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67, the following observations of Their Lordships of Supreme Court are as under : "The decision in Amarendra Narayan Roy v. CIT AIR 1954 Cal. 271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2…

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…s earned in Karachi. What has, therefore, to be determined is whether, notwithstanding the apportionment made by the respondent in the profit and loss statements, the deduction is admissible under the law." 34. In the case of CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67, the following observations of Their Lordships of Supreme Court are as under : "The decision in Amarendra Narayan Roy v. CIT AIR 1954 Cal. 271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2…

Shri Veershaiv Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ssed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge against the profits of the income. From the very nature of Membership fee collected from me…

Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha L/R of Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1494/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…visions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our view the ratio of the Calcutta High Court is mutatis mutandis applicable in the present proceedings. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.M.R.P.Firm Limited reported in 56 ITR 67, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the IT Act, it cannot be taxed on…

Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha L/R of Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…visions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our view the ratio of the Calcutta High Court is mutatis mutandis applicable in the present proceedings. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.M.R.P.Firm Limited reported in 56 ITR 67, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the IT Act, it cannot be taxed on…

Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha L/R of Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1492/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…visions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our view the ratio of the Calcutta High Court is mutatis mutandis applicable in the present proceedings. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.M.R.P.Firm Limited reported in 56 ITR 67, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the IT Act, it cannot be taxed on…

Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha L/R of Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1491/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…visions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our view the ratio of the Calcutta High Court is mutatis mutandis applicable in the present proceedings. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.M.R.P.Firm Limited reported in 56 ITR 67, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the “the doctrine of…

Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha L/R of Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…visions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our view the ratio of the Calcutta High Court is mutatis mutandis applicable in the present proceedings. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.M.R.P.Firm Limited reported in 56 ITR 67, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the IT Act, it cannot be taxed on…

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

…ection 144C of the Act. 13. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 28/12/2019 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Mr. T.P. Firm MUAR in 56 ITR 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio :- “Approbate and Reprobate…

Defsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…in the same breath. 28. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 20.01.2023 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Mr. T.P. Firm MUAR in 56 ITR 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio : “Approbate and Reprobate” is only species of estoppel. It applies only to conduct of parties as in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. If particular income is taxable under the I.T. Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equ…

Garuda Marketing Associates, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…ounts, usually audited, and on the basis of which he returns income. That is, the principle of esstopple, of which ‘approbate and reprobate’ is a specie, applicable to the conduct of the parties, shall prevent the assessee to do so (CIT v. V. MR.P.Firm [1966] 56 ITR 67 (SC)). This in fact is also the purport of the amendment by way of Explanation to s. 41(1) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 01.04.1997. Even otherwise one cannot take advantage of his own wrong to the prejudice of another (B.M. Malani v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 196, 207 (SC)). As such, notwithstanding that an assessee has not recorded,…

The United Theological College, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R
Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ion, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as also the Tribunal have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them.” The second question therefore has to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.” d) CIT v. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel ; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of es…

7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR (56 ITR 67) — Cited in 127 Judgments | BharatTax