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

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…come in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm does not validate the invalid jurisdiction of the AO. The assessee places reliance on the following decisions- i) Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…come in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm does not validate the invalid jurisdiction of the AO. The assessee places reliance on the following decisions- i) Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…come in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm does not validate the invalid jurisdiction of the AO. The assessee places reliance on the following decisions- i) Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that…

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 271ASection 274

…in the same breath. 27. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 27.04.2023 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…

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

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

ITA 3307/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sue and had applied all the decisions and given a comprehensive judgment as under: “5. The tribunal has reversed the said findings after referring to the factual matrix. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Mr. P. Firm, (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 11th April, 1955, that an officer must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra) was distinguished on the ground that the said case was limited to the power of the assessing author…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sue and had applied all the decisions and given a comprehensive judgment as under: “5. The tribunal has reversed the said findings after referring to the factual matrix. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Mr. P. Firm, (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 11th April, 1955, that an officer must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra) was distinguished on the ground that the said case was limited to the power of the assessing author…

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 746/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ketan Ved/Ms. Urvi Mehta/For Respondent: Aditya M Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 234BSection 270A

…er decisions. The Tribunal has also held that the participation in subsequent proceedings does not prevent the assessee from challenging the validity of the order by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR. P. Firm, Mura 56 ITR 67 (SC) and the assessment proceeding culminated on the issue of demand notice and the penalty notice u/s. 274 of the Act, thereby is making subsequent proceedings to be non-est in law. The said decision of the tribunal has also stated that section 156 of the Act does not state a draft demand notice thereby buttressing the contention of the ld.DR that…

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/BANG/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kenche Kumar, The Assistant Door No. 847, 21St Ward, Commissioner Of Bellary Road, Income Tax, Opp. Lucky Tyres, Hospet, Vs. Central Circle – Bellary – 583 201. 2(1), Pan: Avspk7166L Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…the foremost submits that consent does not confirm jurisdiction unless the law holds otherwise. The Appellant wishes to place reliance on the following judicial precedents where it has been held that mere consent cannot confer jurisdiction. a. CIT Vs MRP Firm 56 ITR 67 (SC) b. Pullongode Rubber Vs State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 c. S.R Kosti Vs CIT 276 ITR 165 d. Nirmala L Mehta Vs CIT 269 ITR 1 e. Bhandari Metal & alloys Vs State of Karnataka 136 STC 292 The Appellant further submits that the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the details as furnished during the course of assessment proceeding and further…

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

…pprobate and reprobate. 27. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 27.12.2018 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 equal d…

Marriott International Licensing Company Bvv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 3(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1621/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Marriott International Licensing Dcit (International Taxation)- Company Bvv 3(2)(1), C/O. Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 303 A, 304 Fulcrum, B-Wing, Vs. Hirnandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099

For Appellant: Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavhan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…r decisions. The Tribunal has also held that the participation in subsequent proceedings does not prevent the assessee from challenging the validity of the order by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR. P. Firm, Mura 56 ITR 67 (SC) and the assessment proceeding culminated on the issue of demand notice and the penalty notice u/s. 274 of the Act, thereby is making subsequent proceedings to be non-est in law. The said decision of the tribunal has also stated that section 156 of the Act does not state a draft demand notice thereby buttressing the contention of the ld.DR tha…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…Assessee submitted that it is c) settled position of law that mere consent does not confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that n…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…Assessee submitted that it is c) settled position of law that mere consent does not confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that n…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…Assessee submitted that it is c) settled position of law that mere consent does not confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that n…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…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 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded from the assets side in the balance-sheet subject to the co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…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 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded from the assets side in the balance-sheet subject to the co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…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 contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded from the assets side in the balance-sheet subject to the co…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…e would be taxable irrespective of what the assessee may say or may not say. In this regard, reliance is placed by the Ld. A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT - 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs V.MR.P.Firm - 56 ITR 67. Hence the disallowance may be deleted. 48. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Ld. DRP and submitted that if the obsolete stock is written off in the books at Nil considering the nature of stock and its valuation, then the same may be allowed as expenditure during the year. However, if a provision is made towards stock as obsol…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…e would be taxable irrespective of what the assessee may say or may not say. In this regard, reliance is placed by the Ld. A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT - 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs V.MR.P.Firm - 56 ITR 67. Hence the disallowance may be deleted. 48. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Ld. DRP and submitted that if the obsolete stock is written off in the books at Nil considering the nature of stock and its valuation, then the same may be allowed as expenditure during the year. However, if a provision is made towards stock as obsol…

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 96

…of law. Acquiescence (consent) cannot take away from the party the relief which he entitles, where the tax has been levied and collected without authority of law." (c) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs V. Mr. P. Firm 56 ITR 67 held that "If particular income is not taxable as per the statute of income Tax, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel (the action of one's own. Being precluded from the course by the previous action one's own) or any other equitable doctrine." Equity is out of place in taxing statutes, a particular income is either exigible to tax under the…

M/S Minera Steel & Power Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

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

ITA 515/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H Siva Prasad Reddy, I.T.PFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…t by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law.” (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Madras vs V. MR. P. Firm, Muar reported in 56 ITR 67(SC) held as under:- Page 19 of 21 "If a particular income is not taxable under the Income- tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Equity is out of place in tax law; a particular income is either exigible to tax under the taxing statute or it is not. If it is not, the Income-tax Officer has no power to…